Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Medina

United States District Court, D. Colorado

July 12, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
1. DELANO MARCO MEDINA, Defendant.

          ORDER

          PHILIP A. BRIMMER, United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Combined Motion for the United States to Specify What Discovery it Intends to Use at Trial and for the Defense to Be Provided with the Grand Jury Transcripts [Docket No. 98], Motion for Compliance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act [Docket No. 100], Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [Docket No. 103], Motion to Set Deadlines and for Updated Status on Previous Filed Motions [Docket No. 113], and Motion to Adopt All Previous Filed Pro Se Motions [Docket No. 116]. These motions were filed pro se and, accordingly, the Court will liberally construe defendant's motions to determine if they can be “reasonably read . . . to state a valid claim on which [defendant] could prevail.” United States v. Guerrero, 488 F.3d 1313, 1316 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Mr. Medina has been convicted of various crimes in state court and is currently serving a lengthy sentence in the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”). Docket No. 19 at 1 (“I have been sentenced to the Colorado Department of Corrections to a term of forty four (44) years since August 11th 2015 from Jefferson County case 14-CR-304.”); see also Docket No. 38 at 4.

         The indictment in this case was returned on October 7, 2014. Docket No. 1. An arrest warrant issued the same day. Docket No. 2. By letter to Jefferson County Sheriff Ted Mink dated March 26, 2015, Mr. Medina requested that Mr. Mink “give notice” to the various jurisdictions where cases were pending against Mr. Medina that he was “requesting speedy trial of any warrants/detainers forthwith.” Docket No. 55-2; see also Docket No. 55 at 2. By letter to the Clerk of this Court, dated March 29, 2015 and filed April 2, 2015, Mr. Medina requested the address of the Court and the U.S. Attorney's office “[i]n order to properly file motions.” Docket No. 5. On April 9, 2016, the United States filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum directed to the Denver Reception & Diagnostic Center, but it was returned unexecuted on May 26, 2015. Docket Nos. 6-10.

         A superseding indictment was returned on June 9, 2015, which charges the defendant with fifteen counts, including possession of firearms by a prohibited person, mail theft, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. Docket No. 11. The United States filed a petition for a second writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, directed to the Mesa County Detention Facility, on June 12, 2015. Docket No. 15. The writ issued on July 31, 2015, Docket Nos. 17-18, but there is no evidence it was executed.

         On December 29, 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, 18 U.S.C. App. 2 (“IAD”), had been violated. Docket No. 19. On January 3, 2017, the United States filed a petition for a third writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, directed to the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility, and the writ issued the same day. Docket Nos. 20-23. On January 11, 2017, defendant made his initial appearance and a Federal Public Defender was appointed. Docket Nos. 25, 27, 28. Despite being represented by counsel, defendant filed several pro se motions. See Docket Nos. 41, 42, 43. The Court struck the pro se motions as improper. Docket No. 44.

         On January 31, 2017, defendant, through counsel, requested an ends of justice continuance so that counsel could prepare for trial. Docket No. 38. On February 6, 2017, without holding a hearing, the Court granted defendant's request to exclude 180 days from the Speedy Trial Act period and set the trial to begin on October 2, 2017. Docket No. 40.

         Defendant filed a pro se objection to the trial continuance, arguing that it was prejudicial to his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Docket No. 45 at 1, 4. Defendant also moved to proceed pro se. Docket No. 47. On February 22, 2017, the Court held a hearing on these two motions. Docket No. 49. At the hearing, defendant stated that he agreed with his counsel that a trial continuance was necessary, but he did not think it needed to be so long and he worried it would be prejudicial to his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, which he claimed had already been violated. Docket No. 102 at 16, 16:2-19. The Court proposed denying defendant's motions without prejudice and allowing the defendant to expedite his Sixth Amendment speedy trial challenge, a proposal that Mr. Medina agreed to. Id. at 21-23, 21:12-23:23. The Court denied defendant's objection to the trial continuance and his motion to proceed pro se without prejudice. Docket No. 49 at 2.

         At a hearing on April 25 and 27, 2017, Mr. Medina advised the Court that he wished to represent himself. Docket No. 67. The Court granted defendant's request and appointed advisory counsel. Docket No. 69 at 2.

         Defendant has filed numerous pro se motions. Docket Nos. 41-43, 47, 61-65, 68, 72, 73-75, 76, 87, 90, 91, 94-100, 103, 110, 113, 116, 121-22. T he Court has ruled on many of these motions, Docket Nos. 44, 49, 66, 69, 84, 112, and set deadlines for the United States to respond to others. Docket Nos. 101, 117, 118.

         II. DISCUSSION

         The Court will take up the instant motions, Docket Nos. 98, 100, 103, 113, 116, in the order that they were filed.

         A. Docket No. 98 - Combined Motion

         1. Motion for Identification of Discovery

         Defendant claims that he has received “an excessive amount of discovery” and “needs to be able to distinguish what portions apply to him and what portions apply to his Brother to ensure there is not a misidentification or false evidence presented against [him].” Docket No. 98 at 1., ¶ 1. The United States responds that it “will identify the exhibits it intends to use at trial pursuant to the Court's Practice Standards.” Docket No. 105 at 2.

         This Court's practice standards require the parties to submit exhibit lists two business days before the trial preparation conference. Practice Standards (Criminal cases), Judge Philip A. Brimmer § IV.A.2. Accordingly, the parties' exhibit lists are due September 22, 2017, with trial set to start October 2, 2017. See Docket No. 40. The Court finds that defendant has not shown good cause to modify the deadline for the parties to disclose their exhibit lists or otherwise require the United States to identify specific discovery it intends to rely on. Cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b)(1). Notably, defendant does not claim that he needs the United States to specify what evidence it intends to use at trial in order that he can file a motion to suppress. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(4)(B) (“the defendant may, in order to have an opportunity to move to suppress evidence under Rule 12(b)(3)(C), request notice of the government's intent to use (in its evidence-in-chief at trial) any evidence”).[1] Moreover, it is unclear how defendant's stated aim of ensuring that evidence pertaining to his brother is not used against him would be furthered by the United States identifying the evidence it intends to use at trial. Although such identification could narrow the pool of evidence defendant would have to consider, he would still have to determine whether he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.