Opinion
2:20-cr-169-JAD-BNW
05-16-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RICARDO MIRANDA, Defendant.
Counsel for Defendant RICARDO HERIBERTO MIRANDA LANCE A. MANINGO Maningo Law JASON M. FRIERSON United States Attorney DANIEL J. COWHIG Assistant United States Attorney
Counsel for Defendant RICARDO HERIBERTO MIRANDA LANCE A. MANINGO Maningo Law
JASON M. FRIERSON United States Attorney DANIEL J. COWHIG Assistant United States Attorney
STIPULATION TO VACATE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN SUPERVISED RELEASE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS [ECF NO. 29]
THE HONORABLE ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States of America, through Jason M. Frierson, United States Attorney, and Daniel J. Cowhig, Assistant United States Attorney, and the defendant Ricardo Miranda, by and through his counsel, Lance A. Maningo, Maningo Law, stipulate and agree and move this Honorable Court to vacate the preliminary probable cause hearing in defendant's supervised release revocation proceedings, currently set for Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah. ECF No. 26.
The parties make this stipulation because “[i]t is well settled law in the Ninth Circuit that a probationer is not entitled to a preliminary hearing when he is already in custody at the time of revocation proceedings for a crime committed while he was under supervision. See United States v. Diaz-Burgos, 601 F.2d 983, 984-85 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam). In Diaz-Burgos, the defendant had been convicted of illegally reentering the United States after having been previously deported. While he was on probation for that offense, he again illegally entered the United States and was arrested. Thereafter, his probation was revoked. The defendant appealed, arguing the revocation violated his due process rights. The Ninth Circuit rejected his claim. The Court held “we do not agree with [defendant's] contention that it was necessary to provide him with a preliminary probable cause hearing as was required in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, because [defendant] was already in custody at the time of the revocation proceeding by reason of a second re-entry prosecution.” Id. at 984-85 (internal citation omitted).” United States v. Flores-Perez, No. 07CR1477-L, 2010 WL 1328580, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010).
Defendant Miranda was detained pending trial in United States v. Ricardo Heriberto Miranda, also known as Pee-Wee, 2:24cr94-JCM-EJY, on April 30, 2024. ECF Nos. 8 and 13 in Case No. 2:24cr94. As defendant Miranda was already in custody and remains in custody in another matter, he is not entitled to a preliminary hearing in this revocation matter.
The parties respectfully request this Honorable Court issue the attached proposed Order to accomplish these ends.
[ PROPOSED ] ORDER TO VACATE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN SUPERVISED RELEASE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS [ECF NO. 29]
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Defendant Miranda was detained pending trial in United States v. Ricardo Heriberto Miranda, also known asPee-Wee, 2:24cr94-JCM-EJY, on April 30, 2024. ECF Nos. 8 and 13 in Case No. 2:24cr94. As defendant Miranda was already in custody and remains in custody in another matter, he is not entitled to a preliminary hearing in this revocation matter. United States v. Diaz-Burgos, 601 F.2d 983, 984-85 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); United States v. Flores-Perez, No. 07CR1477-L, 2010 WL 1328580, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefor, that the preliminary probable cause hearing in defendant's supervised release revocation proceedings, currently set for Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at 11:00 a.m., is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.