Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Randy Duane Black

March 6, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RANDY DUANE BLACK,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kandis A. Westmore United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION HEARING

United States District Court Northern District of California

I.Background

On March 6, 2013, the Court held a hearing on the Government's motion to detain Defendant Randy Duane Black pending his supervised release violation hearing. Defendant was present and in custody, and represented himself. Assistant United States Attorney Aaron Wegner 16 appeared on behalf of the Government. Probation Officer Alexandre Bonneville was also present.

For the reasons explained below, the Court orders that Defendant be detained pending his 18 supervised release violation hearing. 19

Defendant was originally sentenced to 18 months in custody and 4 years of supervised 20 release for armed bank robbery on February 28, 2006. On January 15, 2013, a Petition for Arrest 21

Warrant was filed with the Court alleging that Defendant violated the conditions of his supervised 22 release by committing domestic battery against his girlfriend, and absconding from supervision. 23

The Amended Form 12 alleges that Defendant violated the terms of his release on November 29, 2012, when he slapped his girlfriend. Defendant's girlfriend told police officers 25 that he slapped her in the face with his open hand. Defendant allegedly later admitted to the 26 probation officer that he had slapped her. The Amended Form 12 further alleges that Defendant 27 violated the terms of his release by failing to notify his probation officer prior to any change in 28 address. Finally, the Amended Form 12 alleges that on February 18, 2013, Defendant violated the terms of his release by committing the crimes of Robbery in violation of California Penal Code § 2 211, and Threaten Crime With Intent to Terrorize, in violation of California Penal Code § 422. It 3 is alleged that after Defendant was seen putting merchandise from a 7-11 store in his pocket, he 4 was confronted by the store manager, who asked him if he was going to pay for the items. 5

Defendant yelled at the store manager, pushed him, and hit him in the face with a packaged 6 burrito. A store employee tried to detain Defendant by holding him. They struggled and fell to 7 the ground, and the store employee struck a metal counter and injured his forehead and eye. 8

During the struggle Defendant allegedly made death threats to the store manager and employee. 9

II.Analysis

Because Defendant is charged with a supervised release violation, it is his burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6); 18 U.S.C. § 3143. The Court informed Defendant that it 13 did not see why he should not be detained as a flight risk or a danger to the community, and 14 Defendant had no response.

It appears that Defendant has not complied with the conditions of his release. His failure to cooperate with his probation officer, and notify the officer of his change of address, shows that 17 he may be a flight risk. Since being released on supervision, Defendant allegedly committed 18 battery on his girlfriend, and was violent and threatening towards the 7-11 store employees during 19 the alleged robbery. This behavior shows that he poses a danger to the community. The Court 20 also noted that it is anticipated that a Second Amended Form 12 will be filed, alleging that Defendant committed yet another crime while in custody when he attacked and injured a Deputy Sheriff. Moreover, Defendant has appeared in court proceedings in shackles following his violent 23 attack on the officer, because the Marshals cannot trust him not to be violent towards officers 24 again. If Defendant is dangerous while in Court, it is hard to imagine how he would not be a 25 danger to the community if he was released. 26

Because the Court does not believe that there are conditions that can be imposed to mitigate these risks, and Defendant did not argue otherwise, the Court finds that Defendant has not met his burden of establishing by clear and convincing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.