United States v. Turner

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JONTE DESEAN TURNER, Defendant.

No. 5:21-cr-494-OLG

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division

April 21, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge

On November 17, 2021, a grand jury indicted defendant Jonte Turner on three counts: (1) knowingly using and possessing firearms in furtherance of .a drug trafficking crime . (“Count 1”); (2) receiving firearms while knowing he was under indictment (“Count 2”); and (3) knowingly and intentionally possessing marijuana with intent to distribute (“Cotint 3”). Indictment, ECF No 3. That same day, the government moved to detain Turner pending trial. ECF No. 9. One month later, Turner was arrested. 12/17/21 Min. Entry. Magistrate Judge Henry J Bemporad heard the government's motion on December 21 2021.' Judge Bemporad orally ordered that Turner be committed to a halfway house pending trial. 12/21/2.1' Tr. 25:17-24, ECF No. 25. The government then moved to stay Judge Bemporad's order. ECF No. 15. Chief Judge Orlando Garcia granted the motion and stayed the order pending de novo review. ECF No. 16.

On March 29, 2022, Chief Judge Garcia referred this issue to the undersigned. 03/29/22 Min. Entry. The Court heard arguments by both parties on April 1, 2022. Upon consideration of the proffered evidence, the government's motion, and supplemental briefing by both parties, the Court granted the government's motion and ordered Turner detained pending trial. Set forth below are written findings and reasons underlying the Court's order. See 18 U.S.C §3142(i)(1) (requiring that a detention order “include written findings of fact and a written statement of the reasons for the detention”).

I. BACKGROUND

The government proffers the following factual allegations about Turner's conduct.^[1] Before the federal charges in this action, Turner had been arrested for a bevy of state-law charges. On July 1, 2016, Turner was arrested for hindering a person's apprehension or prosecution. See Tex. Penal Code § 38.05(a). Turner did not attend several required court appearances for this charge. ECF No. 29 at 3. On February 27, 2017, Turner was arrested for evading arrest. See Tex. Penal Code § 38.04. As before, Turner failed to attend a required court appearance for this charge. According to Turner, he missed these appearances because his attorney-who had passed away-, was responsible for notifying him of required court dates. Turner argues that he did not know of...... his attorney's death until after he had missed the required appearances. On April 19, 2018, Turner was arrested for failure to identify. See Tex. Penal Code § 38.02-. Finally, on May 24, 2018, Turner was arrested for murder. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1). Turner was released on February 26, 2020, after paying a $500, 000 bond. One of Turner's bond conditions mandated that he not possess a firearm.

That brings about the events in this case. On January 27, 2021, San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) officers responded to a shots-fired call in a local apartment complex. The caller was a young woman living in an apartment with a small child. After questioning the caller, SAPD officers learned that she had heard a gunshot and had noticed a bullet hole in a wall she shared with a neighbor. SAPD officers entered the caller's apartment, discovered the bullet hole, and recovered portions of the bullet.

Turner lived in that neighboring apartment. After questioning Turner, searching his person, . and conducting a protective sweep of Turner's apartment, officers found several mobile phones, thousands of dollars in cash, and several firearms located in plain view. Officers then obtained a search warrant. Officers searching Turner's apartment discovered six firearms, ammunition, roughly 4.8 pounds of marijuana, and various scales and vacuum sealers containing marijuana residue. Officers then arrested Turner. Later, officers checked the serial numbers on the seized firearms against federal databases. One firearm-a 5.56 caliber ATI Omni Hybrid rifle-was purchased on March 19, 2020.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq., authorizes the detention of a defendant in two situations. First, the government may request pretrial detention if the charged offense falls into one of five enumerated categories, including a “crime of violence” or a felony involving the possession or use of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1). Second, the government may seek pretrial detention when the case involves “a serious risk” that the defendant will flee or “will attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure; or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror.” Id. § 3142(f)(2).

If the Bail Reform Act authorizes pretrial detention, the judicial officer must hold a hearing to determine whether any conditions of release would reasonably assure' the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community. Id. § 3142(f). A judicial officer may order pretrial detention upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required” or by clear and convincing evidence that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure ... the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)-(f); see United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 1985).

For crimes committed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the Bail Reform Act establishes a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community. Id. § 3142(e)(3)(B). This presumption arises upon probable cause to believe that the crime has been committed-e.g., through an indictment. See United States v. Sims, 801 Fed.Appx. 324, 324 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Farguson, 721 F.Supp. 128, 129-31 (N.D. Tex. 1989). This rebuttable presumption “shifts to the defendant only the burden of producing rebutting evidence.” United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). The government retains the burden of persuasion. Id.

A court must consider the following factors to determine whether conditions or a combination of conditions would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance and the public's safety:

(1)the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including, whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of Section 1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device; .

(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;

(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including-

(A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ......... ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in ., the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and .

(B) whether, at the time of the current offense of arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, state, or local law; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

A district court reviews a magistrate's pretrial-release order de novo and “must make an independent determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions for release.” Rueben, 974 F.2d at 585.

III. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

Because the indictment charges Turner with unlawfully possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, the government may seek Turner's detentioh pending trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1); Indictment, ECF No. 3. Turner argues that the conditions set by Judge • Bemporad would adequately ensure his future appearances and community safety. ECF No. 29 at 2. The government contends that Turner is a flight risk and a danger to the community. ECF No; 26 at 6. The Court agrees with the government. Turner's alleged possession of firearms in connection with drug trafficking, the weight of the evidence against him, his history of missing court appearances, his pending murder charge, and his alleged violation of release conditions weigh strongly in favor of pretrial detention. Upon consideration of the Bail Reform Act's four-/ factor test, the Court will order Turner detained pending trial.

A. Turner Has Rebutted the Presumption of Danger to the Community

Because Turner was charged with a § 924(c) offense in an indictment, the Court must presume that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3); Indictment, ECF No. 3; see also United States v Diaz, No. 3:08-cr-267 (SAF), 2008 WL 4561561, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2008) (explaining that “an indictment provides probable cause that a defendant committed an offence ... sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption” in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) (citation omitted)). Turner thus bears the burden of producing rebutting evidence. Rueben, 974 F.2d at 586. He has done so. At the December and April hearings, Turner produced evidence (1) showing strong family support from his girlfriend and mother and (2) explaining that his prior failures to appear stemmed from miscommunications with his attorney, who had passed away without Turner realizing. See, e.g, 12/21/21 Tr. 24:625:24. This evidence rebuts the inference that Turner's past absences indicate a willingness to shirk court appearances. And it supports a premise that Turner's family could control his inclinations to...