U.S. v. Forbes, 98-10259
| Decision Date | 01 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-10259,98-10259 |
| Parties | 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2366, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3139 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Suzanne FORBES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mary M. French, David M. Porter, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Sacramento, California, for the defendant-appellant.
Benjamin B. Wagner, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, California, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Before: NOONAN, TASHIMA, Circuit Judges and RESTANI, 1 Judge.
Suzanne Forbes appeals the sentence imposed following her plea of guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 157. Forbes was sentenced to five years of probation with a special condition of six months imprisonment.
Holding that straight prison time and probation are mutually exclusive by statute, we vacate the sentence and remand.
Forbes was charged with eight counts of bankruptcy fraud, one count of fraudulent transfer of property in contemplation of bankruptcy, and one count of false statement in relation to a bankruptcy case in connection with her efforts to delay foreclosure on her home. On March 23, 1998 she entered a plea agreement by which nine of the counts were dismissed and she pleaded guilty to a single count of bankruptcy fraud committed in 1995. The government agreed to recommend a sentence of five months in prison and five months in community confinement; the defendant agreed not to seek a sentence of less than ten months in community confinement.
The Presentence Report noted the defendant's "severe psychological problems"; her residence, since August 1997, in a care home approved for referrals from the Santa Cruz County Mental Health Department; letters from two employees of a county agency noting "a remarkable transformation in the defendant's life" since 1996; and the evaluation of a treating psychiatrist that Forbes was "successfully involved in treatment." The probation officer recommended "continued community supervision, uninterrupted by a term of imprisonment."
The district court imposed restitution of $5,000 and probation of five years, adding under the heading "Special Conditions Of Supervision" that Forbes should remain for six months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. The court recommended the prison facility at Dublin, California as one having facilities for appropriate medical and psychological treatment.
Forbes appeals.
18 U.S.C. § 3561 is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Castro-Verdugo
...which precludes probation for a defendant who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the same offense. United States v. Forbes, 172 F.3d 675, 676 (9th Cir.1999). Although the sentence imposed was clearly erroneous and Defendant was represented by counsel, Defendant did not move to vacat......
- Atterbury v. Insley
-
United States v. Panayiotou
... ... See, ... e.g. , United States v. Forbes , 172 F.3d 675, ... 676 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting a sentence of six months' ... ...
-
United States v. Sarko
... ... the general rule in Section 3551(b). United States v ... Forbes, 172 F.3d 675, 676 (9th Cir. 1999); see ... United States v. Martin, 363 F.3d 25, 35 (1st ... ...
-
Sentencing
...evidence it led or would lead defendant to commit crime, and condition barring all direct contact with minors overbroad); U.S. v. Forbes, 172 F.3d 675, 676 (9th Cir. 1999) (condition imposing 6 months imprisonment invalid because sentence of 6 straight months not “intermittent incarceration......