United States v. Michael A. Carrion

457 F.2d 808, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10459
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 28, 1972
Docket71-2607
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 457 F.2d 808 (United States v. Michael A. Carrion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Michael A. Carrion, 457 F.2d 808, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10459 (9th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

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 On the basis of these two convictions, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to imprisonment.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 *809 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.

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

Related

United States v. Christopher Perkins
67 F.4th 583 (Fourth Circuit, 2023)
United States v. Ortiz
185 F. App'x 651 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
State v. Michael
891 So. 2d 109 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2005)
United States v. Waldron
306 F. Supp. 2d 623 (M.D. Louisiana, 2004)
United States v. Gaylen Knight
16 F.3d 418 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)
Harris v. United States
612 A.2d 198 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1992)
Pueblo v. Rosa Atiles
128 P.R. Dec. 603 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1991)
United States v. Ronald Czajak
909 F.2d 20 (First Circuit, 1990)
State v. Holcomb
360 S.E.2d 232 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1987)
United States v. Reynaldo Garcia, Jr.
771 F.2d 1369 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Jose Guadarrama
742 F.2d 487 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
State v. Ellefson
334 N.W.2d 56 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1983)
Hutchinson v. State
438 A.2d 1335 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1982)
State v. Oppelt
601 P.2d 394 (Montana Supreme Court, 1979)
United States v. Maximo Diaz-Burgos
601 F.2d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Jones v. United States
401 A.2d 473 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1979)
United States v. Bonanno
452 F. Supp. 743 (N.D. California, 1978)
United States v. Vance Smith
571 F.2d 370 (Seventh Circuit, 1978)
United States v. John Patrick Marron
564 F.2d 867 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
457 F.2d 808, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-a-carrion-ca9-1972.