Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:14CR-82-CRS
10-28-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. PABLO VEGA MORATA DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion (DN 53) to revoke the detention order entered by the magistrate judge on July 30, 2015 (DN 51).
No new facts are alleged in the defendant's motion for revocation of the detention order, and it appears that the arguments center on whether the revocation order is "disproportionally harsh."
Mr. Vega Morata tested positive for cocaine usage and possession in December of 2014, which, of course, was some months ago. More recently, he is charged in state court with illegal possession of Ritalin, which is apparently a misdemeanor charge under Kentucky law.
Because the Indictment establishes probable cause, and the charged offense carries a maximum term of imprisonment of ten (10) years or more, this is a presumption case.
The bond revocation hearing conducted by the magistrate judge on July 24, 2015, is not Vega Morata's first encounter with his difficulty in complying with release conditions. A previous bond revocation hearing was conducted in the Fall of 2014 upon allegations that Vega Morata failed to comply with the requirement of the location monitoring system.
Despite the undisputed fact that the current state drug charge for illegal possession of Ritalin constitutes a misdemeanor, it is apparent to the Court that Vega Morata has not kept his side of the bargain in allowing him to be free on bond, given the previous location monitoring requirements failure and his failure to comply with the conditions earlier established for Vega Morata's release, which include not illegally possessing a controlled substance. While the suppression motion has not yet been adjudicated, the evidence against Vega Morata is strong if the motion is not granted.
The Court concludes that Vega Morata has not overcome the presumption that the safety of the community cannot be reasonably ensured absent detention. Accordingly, upon de novo review, the magistrate judge's revocation Order (DN 51) is AFFIRMED and the motion to revoke it (DN 53) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2015
/s/
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge
United States District Court
cc: United States Attorney
United States Probation
Counsel of Record