UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MICHAEL A. CARRION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A district court may revoke probation based on a conviction that is still pending appeal, provided there is reasonable satisfaction that a law has been violated.
Carrion was placed on probation and subsequently convicted of a state marijuana possession charge and a federal conspiracy to smuggle marijuana charge…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Law Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Carrion appeals from the revocation of his probation. On March 4, 1969, Carrion pled guilty to a two count information charging illegal acquisition of marijuana and bail jumping, and was placed on probation for a period of three years. He was ordered to obey all federal, state and local laws.
On February 18, 1970, Carrion was arrested for possession of marijuana, a state charge to which he pled guilty. On April 23, 1970, appellant was convicted by a jury of the federal offense of conspiring to smuggle marijuana. On the basis of these two convictions, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to imprisonment.
On the date of the revocation hearing, the conspiracy conviction was still pend ing on appeal. Carrion argues that the district court abused its discretion by predicating the revocation of his probation upon a conviction which was not yet final. We think not.
First, the state conviction was final and there was ample evidence that Carrion had violated the terms of his probation. See, e. g. United States v. Johnson, 9 Cir., 1969, 415 F. 2d 1130. Second, though Carrion’s federal conviction was pending on appeal, the judge was warranted in viewing that conviction as evidence that Carrion had violated federal law. Probation may be revoked when the judge is reasonably satisfied that a state or federal law has been violated, and conviction is not a prerequisite. United States v. Marko-vich, 2 Cir., 1965, 348 F. 2d 238, 240; Bernal-Zazueta v. United States, 9 Cir., 1955, 225 F. 2d 64, 68; Gross v. Bishop, 8 Cir., 1967, 377 F. 2d 492; United States v. Cates, 4 Cir., 1968, 402 F. 2d 473; Amaya v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1970, 424 F. 2d 363.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
United States v. Garza, 484 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Jasper Roberson v. State OF Conn., 501 F.2d 305 (2d Cir. 1974)
-
United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1977)
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Markovich, 348 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1965)
- United States v. Cates, 402 F.2d 473 (4th Cir. 1968)
- Amaya v. Beto, 424 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Bernal-Zazueta v. United States, 225 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Gross v. Bishop, 377 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1967)
- United States v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir. 1969)