U.S. v. Wright

Full title: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Toray K. Wright, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Aug 18, 2010

Case No. 2:10-mj-465-TPK (S.D. Ohio Aug. 18, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-mj-465-TPK.

August 18, 2010

ORDER

TERENCE KEMP, Magistrate Judge

The above defendant appeared before the Court on August 16, 2010 for a hearing on his motion for release. The Court had previously, in a decision dated August 6, 2010, ordered him detained without bond. For the following reasons, his motion for bond (#17) will be denied.

As the Court's prior order noted, the defendant has been charged in a complaint with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute in excess of 500 kilograms of marijuana. He was detained without bond based on the presumption of detention that applies to this type of case, his lack of strong ties to the Columbus area, his lack of employment, and his criminal history, including a weapons conviction which followed a felony drug conviction, and a new felony drug conviction which occurred while he was on community control for the weapons offense.

As new information, defendant proffered a letter indicating that he has an employment opportunity awaiting him should he be released, and that he pleaded guilty to his most recent drug felony in order to avoid trial on a more serious charge. That new information does little to change the Court's view of this case.

The fact remains that there is probable cause to believe that defendant committed a serious drug offense carrying a mandatory five-year prison term, has more ties to New York than to Columbus, does not have a good employment record, and has a string of drug and weapons convictions. The fact that he pleaded guilty to one drug felony in order to avoid conviction on a more serious charge does not alter the fact that he pleaded guilty to a crime committed while on community control, and this Court must accept the fact that he was guilty of that crime. In short, all of the reasons for detaining defendant previously are still valid. The Court therefore declines to reconsider its prior order and denies the motion (#17) for release on bond.

The defendant is again advised of his right to seek review of this detention order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).