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. Coppedge

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 8, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
TEDDY COPPEDGE, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

         At Wilmington this 8th day of March, 2017, having considered defendant's motion for time previously served, and the papers submitted in connection therewith;

         IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 48) is granted for the reasons that follow:

         1. On January 14, 2009, defendant entered a plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (D.I. 24) The court sentenced defendant to 72 months of incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. (D.I. 30)

         2. Defendant's term of supervision commenced on July 10, 2013 and was scheduled to expire on July 9, 2016. (D.I. 36)

         3. On February 10, 2016, defendant was arrested and charged by Delaware State Police with possession with intent to deliver a quantity of heroin and cocaine base. Defendant was incarcerated by the Delaware Department of Correction on or about February 10, 2016. (Id.)

         4. On February 29, 2016, the U.S. Probation Office ("Probation") filed a petition for violation of supervised release, contending that defendant's arrest on February 10, 2016 violated a mandatory condition of release.[1] (Id.) The court granted the petition and a warrant was issued for defendant's arrest to answer the charges of violating the conditions of supervision.

         5. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Superior Court sentenced defendant to seven years imprisonment, suspended after two years imprisonment to be followed by 18 months of probation.

         6. On July 6, 2016, a magistrate judge granted a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum for defendant to appear in court on an initial appearance for a violation of supervised release petition. (D.I. 39) Defendant was ordered to remain in federal custody awaiting the hearing on the alleged supervised release violation.

         7. At the July 27, 2016 hearing, defendant admitted that he violated the mandatory condition imposed by the court. (D.I. 53 at 4) The government and Probation recommended a 24-month sentence to run concurrently to the state sentence.[2] (D.I. 53 at 4-5) Defendant implored the court to run the sentences, stating:

My only concern is that next year, around the summertime, I'm set to be going to work release because, continuing good behavior in the state, and by me having to do 24-months [on the supervised release violation], I will not - they will not send me to work release. I won't be able to go to work release because that's something prison send you to upon having good behavior and doing the programs you're doing. So with 24 months, I cannot get work release. I would have to max out my whole state sentence and then be released to the public for probation.
I would only ask that somehow even if I have to be reinstated supervised release, that that time be cut in half so the - prison time be cut in half so I can go to work release and obtain employment instead of going straight out to probation.

(D.I. 53 at 8)

         8. In response, the court inquired whether Probation and the government found it appropriate to reduce the term of imprisonment and how to craft such a sentence to run concurrently with the state sentence. (Id. at 8-11) After the government and Probation endorsed the 18-month sentence, the court turned to defendant, stating:

I want to help you out. I want to believe that, you know, this is the last time. If you can look at me in the eye and tell me that this is the last time, certainly, that I will see you, I will reduce the sentence to 18 months to allow you the opportunity to go out on work release more consistent with the state. It might not be entirely consistent with the state. We don't know how that works, ...

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.