United States v. Mills
| Decision Date | 09 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-2-75-14.,CR-2-75-14. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Glenn Willis MILLS, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
John L. Bowers, U. S. Atty., and Edward E. Wilson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Edward H. Moody, Morristown, Tenn., for defendant.
The probationer objected to the refusal of a United States magistrate of this district to continue his preliminary probation revocation hearing until final adjudication of five presentments (indictments) returned against him by various grand juries of the state of Tennessee. The objection is without merit.
At anytime during the probationer's period of probation, he was subject to arrest for its violation on the application of a probation officer of this Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3653. "* * * The probation system was devised to allow persons guilty of anti-social conduct to continue at large but under appropriate safeguards. * * *" Roberts v. United States (1943), 320 U.S. 264, 64 S.Ct. 113, 88 L.Ed. 41, 46 (dissenting opinion). "* * * Probation of a person convicted of crime is a matter of grace. * *" United States v. Tucker, C.A. 6th (1971), 444 F.2d 512, 5131, certiorari denied (1972), 404 U.S. 1048, 92 S.Ct. 711, 30 L.Ed.2d 739. In a final probation revocation proceeding, the Court "* * * may revoke the probation and require the probationer to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence, and, if imposition of sentence was suspended, may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed." 18 U.S.C. § 3653.
The conviction of the probationer of the state charges is not a prerequisite to this Court's revocation of his probation. United States v. Markovich, C.A.2d (1965), 348 F.2d 238, 2404. Thus, a federal court may proceed to both preliminary and final probation revocation hearings before any trial in a state court of criminal charges out of which arose the alleged probation violations. United States v. Denno, D.C.N.Y. (1959), 173 F.Supp. 237, 2417, affirmed on the opinion below C.A.2d (1959), 272 F.2d 191, certiorari denied (1960), 363 U.S. 814, 80 S.Ct. 1252, 4 L.Ed.2d 1155. The * * *" United States v. Tucker, supra, 444 F.2d at 5131.
In such final hearing, the usual rules of evidence need not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ketcham v. State
...the probation. See Burns v. United States (1932), 287 U.S. 216, 221, 53 S.Ct. 154, 77 L.Ed. 266, 269. * * * " United States v. Mills, E.D.Tenn., 444 F.Supp. 26, 27 (1977). Revocation of probation because of a violation of law is not precluded although the probationer is acquitted in a crimi......
-
Minchew v. State, 83-255
...the probation. See Burns v. United States (1932), 287 U.S. 216, 221, 53 S.Ct. 154 , 77 L.Ed. 266, 269. * * * ' United States v. Mills, E.D.Tenn., 444 F.Supp. 26, 27 (1977). "Revocation of probation because of a violation of law is not precluded although the probationer is acquitted in a cri......
-
Mason v. State, 5401
...terms and conditions of his probation, in its discretion, the Court will revoke the probation. (Citation.) * * * " United States v. Mills, 444 F.Supp. 26, 27 (E.D.Tenn.1977). When the condition alleged to have been violated is other than that which prohibits additional unlawful behavior, th......
-
State v. Jurado
...of his probation by breaking the law in question. See United States v. Chambers, 429 F.2d 410 (3d Cir.1970); United States v. Mills, 444 F.Supp. 26 (E.D.Tenn.1977); People v. Beaudrie, 147 Cal.App.3d 686, 195 Cal.Rptr. 289 (1983); Hernandez v. State, 556 S.W.2d 337 State v. Camargo, 112 Ari......