United States v. Parton

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN PARTON, JR., Defendant.

No. 3:21-CR-107-KAC-DCP

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville

April 7, 2023

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DEBRA C. POPLIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the Court on Defendant Franklin Parton's Motion to Reconsider

Allowing the Defendant to Remain on Medical Furlough for the Next 30 Days or in the Alternative Pending Sentencing [Doc. 351] which was referred in part to a United States Magistrate Judge^[1] on March 29, 2023 [Doc. 358 pp. 1, 6]. See 28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)(B).^[2] While temporarily detained pending a ruling on a petition to revoke his conditions of release, Defendant Parton was released on a medical furlough to have surgery to place a stoma and colostomy bag [See Docs. 344 & 358 p. 4]. Upon discharge from the hospital, Defendant returned to custody pursuant to the terms of his medical furlough [See Doc. 344 p. 3]. Defendant now asks for release on a medical furlough pending his April 21, 2023 sentencing hearing in order to “obtain proper post-operative care and attention in a non-jail environment;” avoid infection adjust to and learn to change his colostomy bag; receive an intravenous infusion of medication on April 11, 2023; and attend post-surgery appointments [Doc. 351 pp. 1-3]. While on release, Defendant proposes residing with a third-party custodian [Id. at 3].^[3] The Government opposes his release, arguing that Defendant is a danger to the community and a flight risk and that he can receive medical care while in custody [Doc. 355 pp. 2-3].

While the undersigned sympathizes with Defendant's chronic medical issues, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown clear evidence of a compelling reason for his release pending his sentencing hearing. Additionally, the Court has previously determined [Doc. 358] and the undersigned continues to find that Defendant has failed to carry his burden of showing that he is not a danger or flight risk, if released. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that the Defendant remain detained pending his sentencing hearing.

I. ANALYSIS

Defendant Parton is detained pending his sentencing hearing, following the revocation of his conditions of release [Doc. 358 p. 7]. The Court may permit the temporary release of a defendant in custody if it determines the release is “necessary for preparation of the person's defense or another compelling reason.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). Section 3142(i) “applies to Defendant even though he has pled guilty and is thus pending sentencing rather than trial.” United States v. Kennedy, 449 F.Supp.3d 713, 717 (E.D. Mich. 2020). The Bail Reform Act does not define a “compelling reason” for purposes of § 3142(i), nor has our appellate court interpreted that term. Id. at 718. However, “[c]ourts have typically granted relief under § 3142(i) only sparingly to permit a defendant's release where, for example, he is suffering from a terminal illness or serious injuries.” United States v. Shelton, No. 3:19-CR-14, 2020 WL 1815941, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 9, 2020) (internal quotation omitted). Courts have declined to release a defendant pursuant to § 3142(i) when the health concerns are speculative. United States v. Hanson, No. 3:22-CR-00076, 2022 WL 1813585, *8 (N.D. Ohio May 3, 2022) (declining a furlough when defendant did not have a personal heightened risk of contracting Covid-19 or that the detention facility was not prepared to care for individuals infected with the virus), adopting report and recommendation 2022 WL 1803337 (N.D. Ohio June 2, 2022); United States v. Ford, 455 F.Supp.3d 512, 520 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (“The mere possibility of contracting COVID-19 does not equate to a compelling enough reason to justify [temporary] release” under § 3142(i).). A defendant seeking release under § 3142(i) “bears the burden of establishing circumstances warranting temporary release.” Hanson, 2022 WL 1813585, at *7. With these principles in mind, the Court turns to the circumstances of this case.

The parties appeared on April 5, 2023, for a hearing on Defendant's renewed request for a medical furlough. Assistant United States Attorney Anne-Marie Svolto appeared on behalf of the Government. Attorney John Stanford Young, III, represented Defendant Parton, who was also present.

At the hearing, Mr. Young stated that Defendant's surgeon has recommended that he recover at home, rather than in a jail, for a period of thirty days [See Doc. 351-1, Note from Dr. Gregory Midis]. Mr. Young stated that Defendant is detained at the Blount County Jail, which is across the street from a hospital, and that the nurse at the jail has provided Defendant care and assisted with his colostomy bag following his discharge after surgery. He acknowledged that Defendant has not had an infection while detained at the jail following his discharge from the hospital. Mr. Young stated that the Marshals Service has overseen Defendant's medical care since he was taken into custody. Defense counsel candidly related that the motion for medical furlough was filed before Defendant's discharge from the hospital and that he might not have filed the same motion given the current circumstances. However, he stated that he was still asking for a medical furlough because Defendant could get an infection between now and sentencing, particularly if the April 21 sentencing hearing was delayed, and because the nurse was not at the jail fulltime.

AUSA Svolto stated that the Government still opposes a furlough. She reviewed Defendant's prior dangerous conduct in leading police on a highspeed chase through the community, after an officer stated he smelled the odor of marijuana in Defendant's car, which conduct formed the basis for the revocation of Defendant's release on conditions. AUSA Svolto stated that Defendant's chronic medical condition is being managed while he is in custody and that the Marshals Service and the jail staff are providing the necessary care for his recovery from surgery. She argued that Defendant has failed to show release is necessary and that Defendant remains a flight risk, as well as a danger.

The Court finds Defendant has failed to show a “compelling reason” for a medical furlough pending his sentencing hearing. The Court has already determined and continues to find that Defendant Parton is a danger to the community [Doc. 343 pp. 6-10; Doc. 358 p. 5]. The Court also finds that Defendant has received needed medical care and assistance with his colostomy bag while in custody. Defendant did not raise any problems with his medical care, stated he had not had an infection since his release, and acknowledged his concerns regarding infection and an extended stay in the local jail were speculative at this point. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has not demonstrated an actual basis, much less a compelling reason, for a medical furlough.

II. CONCLUSION

In summary, the Court finds Defendant Parton has failed to show a compelling reason for a new medical furlough. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS the Defendant remain...