United States v. Fridman Santisteban

D. Puerto Rico

United States v. Fridman Santisteban

127 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19736, 2000 WL 33156474

CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico

DecidedSeptember 18, 2000

DocketCrim 00-467(JAF), 00-468(JAF), 00-469(JAF), 00-472(JAF), 00-473(JAF)

StatusPublished

This text of 127 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (United States v. Fridman Santisteban) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Fridman Santisteban, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19736, 2000 WL 33156474 (prd 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

FUSTE, District Judge.

Defendants Carmen S. Fridman Santis-teban, Hilcia Guadalupe Carrasquillo, Ab-del Guadalupe Tirado, Lolita Lebrón Soto-mayor, and Luz Maldonado Rivera, move to dismiss the Government’s Information against them, alleging a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (1985). Defendants maintain that they were arrested on June 1, 2000, that the Government filed an Information in their cases on July 17, 2000, and that they were not made aware of the existence of said Information and formally charged until September 5, 2000. Thus, they allege a violation of the thirty-day maximum statutory time period for filing an Information created by section 3161.

Defendants are incorrect. Defendants are charged with petty offenses, which are Class B misdemeanors. See 18 U.S.C. § 19 (1999) (“As used in this title, the term “petty offense” means a Class B misdemeanor .... ”). The Speedy Trial Act does not apply to Class B misdemeanors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3172(a) (1985) (defining “offense” to be “any Federal criminal offense which is established by Act of Congress (other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or an infraction”)); see also United States v. Salgado-Hernandez, 790 F.2d 1265, 1268 (5th Cir.1986) (stating that “Speedy Trial Act applies to felonies and to misdemeanors other than petty offenses”). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit addressed this very issue and concluded that “[ijmproper entrance onto a military base is a Class B Misdemeanor, to which the Speedy Trial Act does not apply.” United States v. Boyd, 214 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2000).

In accordance with the foregoing, we find that the Speedy Trial Act does not apply to Defendants’ claims and DENY Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION AND ORDER

FUSTE, District Judge.

Defendants Carmen S. Fridman Santis-teban, Hilcia Guadalupe Carrasquillo, Ab-del Guadalupe Tirado, Lolita Lebrón Soto-mayor, and Luz Maldonado Rivera, move to dismiss the Government’s Information against them, alleging a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (1985). Defendants maintain that they were arrested on June 1, 2000, that the Government filed an Information in their cases on July 17, 2000, and that they were not made aware of the existence of said Information and formally charged until September 5, 2000. Thus, they allege a violation of the thirty-day maximum statutory time period for filing an Information created by section 3161.

Defendants are incorrect. Defendants are charged with petty offenses, which are Class B misdemeanors. See 18 U.S.C. § 19 (1999) (“As used in this title, the term “petty offense” means a Class B misdemeanor .... ”). The Speedy Trial Act does not apply to Class B misdemeanors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3172(a) (1985) (defining “offense” to be “any Federal criminal offense which is established by Act of Congress (other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or an infraction”)); see also United States v. Salgado-Hernandez, 790 F.2d 1265, 1268 (5th Cir.1986) (stating that “Speedy Trial Act applies to felonies and to misdemeanors other than petty offenses”). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit addressed this very issue and concluded that “[ijmproper entrance onto a military base is a Class B Misdemeanor, to which the Speedy Trial Act does not apply.” United States v. Boyd, 214 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2000).

In accordance with the foregoing, we find that the Speedy Trial Act does not apply to Defendants’ claims and DENY Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19736, 2000 WL 33156474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fridman-santisteban-prd-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack