Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Michael A. Carrion

United States v. Michael A. Carrion, 457 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-03-28
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that “[p]robation may be revoked when the judge is reasonably satisfied that a state of federal law has been violated, and conviction is not a prerequisite”
  • conviction can be evidence of supervised release violation even if it is being appealed

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Michael A. Carrion. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
37 opinions
UNITED STATES v. CARRION,457 F.2d 808(9th Cir. 1972)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MICHAEL A. CARRION,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 71-2607.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 28, 1972.
Alan Saltzman, of Saltzman Goldin, Hollywood, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

William D. Keller, U.S. Atty., Richard A. Stilz, Darrell McIntyre, Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before KOELSCH, DUNIWAY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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.

[2] 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 On the basis of these two convictions, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to imprisonment.

[3] On the date of the revocation hearing, the conspiracy conviction was still pendingPage 809on 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.

[4] 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. Markovich, 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.

[5] Affirmed.