14.2: Critical Thinking
-
You are a probation officer tasked with completing a presentence investigation report on a defendant. Review the cases below and identify potential aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances.
- PRESENT OFFENSE NARRATIVE: On December xx, 2020, at approximately 2:15 pm, Austin Police Department (APD) Officer K. and Officer P. responded to a report of a forgery passing at ABC Cash Express located at 517 A Ave. Upon arrival they met with Mary Smith who stated that a female, identified as Melanie Miller, the defendant, was attempting to cash a fake 7-11 check worth $2962.30. Mary called the Bank of America to confirm if the check was real. Bank of America told her that the account number on the check did not exist. Mary advised the defendant, who also presented a letter trying to prove that the check was good. Mary added that the paper used for the check was regular paper, not paper that is consistent in the preparation of checks. She continued to state that the business has cashed valid 7-11 checks in the past and the check number was too small. When Mary told the defendant and her cousin, identified as Esther Jones, that she was calling the police, the defendant and Jones got scared and left the scene. The defendant (and Jones) returned to the scene and explained to Officer K. and Officer P. how she got the check. The defendant stated that she enrolled herself in a Yahoo post for a Christmas job or to receive financial assistance for Christmas. She stated that she got paid in many ways, including gift cards and this check with number 0009999337. The defendant said that the check was delivered from Canada. The letter that came with the check was from Alliance Processing Center. It was an Award Notification Letter telling the defendant that she had won $50,000 and that they were mailing her an assistance check of $2962.30 to help her pay for tax and administrative expenses involved with her winnings. The defendant was upset and stated that she did not know that the check was not real. The defendant stated that she did not know who sent her the check and did not have an explanation for why the check was stated to be from Dallas, TX, but mailed from Canada. It should be noted that the phone number on the check returns to Ontario, Canada, not Texas.
|
DATE |
ARRESTING AGENCY |
OFFENSE |
DISPOSITION |
|---|---|---|---|
|
06/00/02 |
PD, Austin, TX |
Credit Card Abuse |
12/00/02, Three years probation |
|
03/00/03 |
SO, Travis County |
Theft by Check |
07/00/03, 20 days Travis County Jail |
|
02/00/06 |
PD, Austin, Texas |
Burglary of Habitation |
07/00/06, 10 years Shock Probation 04/00/88, Revoked, 90 days Travis County Jail |
|
10/00/07 |
PD, Austin, Texas |
Theft |
02/00/08, 60 days Travis County Jail |
|
11/00/07 |
PD, Austin, Texas |
Theft |
02/00/08, 60 days Travis County Jail |
|
08/00/07 |
PD, Austin, Texas |
Forgery by Possession with Intent to Pass |
01/00/88, Eight years TDCJ |
|
11/00/14 |
Park Police, Texas |
Theft of Property |
11/00/15, 4 days Travis County Jail |
|
01/00/15 |
PD, San Marcos, TX |
Criminal Mischief |
03/00/15, Fined |
- Sources available to this department indicate that the defendant has been convicted of three prior felony offenses and served two prior terms of probation for Credit Card Abuse and Burglary of Habitation. There was no record found for the Credit Card Abuse probation. The Burglary of Habitation probation term was revoked on 04/00/88 due to committing the subsequent offense of Forgery by Possession with Intent to Pass on 08/00/87 and failure to report as directed.
- PENDING CASES: None.
- VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT: Victim: None
- Loss: None
- Read United States v. P.H.E, Inc. , 965 F.2d 848 (1992). In P.H.E., Inc., the defendant never went to trial but was indicted. The defendant challenged the indictment, which was upheld by the trial court. The government claimed that the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit could not hear an appeal of the trial court’s decision, because there was never a “final judgment.” Did the Circuit Court agree? Why or why not?
- What does the Supreme Court look for when deciding whether to grant certiorari? Identify the reasons or cause to take a criminal court case to the Supreme Court.