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.

Brannon v. Etowah County Court Referral Program, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Middle Division

March 30, 2018

MARY BRANNON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ETOWAH COUNTY COURT REFERRAL PROGRAM, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiffs[1] initiated this civil rights lawsuit and purported class action on July 1, 2013, against Defendants City of Gadsden (“COG”), the Etowah County Court Referral Program, LLC (the “ECCRP”), and the ECCRP's Executive Director, Lenesha Zaner (“Ms. Zaner”).[2] (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs have amended their complaint multiple times. The last version was filed on April 9, 2015. (Docs. 22, 43, 45, 63). By virtue of the pro tanto stipulated dismissal entered on July 12, 2017 (doc. 171), COG is no longer a party to this action.

         Pending before the Court is the Amended/Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 162) (the “Motion”) filed by the remaining Defendants-Ms. Zaner and the ECCRP-on June 30, 2017. The Court has reviewed the parties' filings offered in support of and opposition to the Motion. (Docs. 136, 137, 139-1, 140, 142, 143, 163-67, 172). For the reasons set out below, the Motion is granted in part and otherwise denied or termed as moot.

         II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R . Civ. P. 56(a). All reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor of the non-movant. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “Once the moving party has properly supported its motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to ‘come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” International Stamp Art, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 456 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)).

         III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND[3]

         All Plaintiffs have been convicted and/or pled guilty to one or more misdemeanor offensives within the jurisdiction of the Gadsden Municipal Court (the “GMC”). Plaintiffs' civil rights suit challenges Defendants' practices under a court referral program (the “CRP”) that the GMC ordered Plaintiffs to participate in as a requirement of their probation and a suspension of their sentences tied to their misdemeanor cases.

         Plaintiffs have summarized their respective GMC and CRP proceedings (doc. 163 at 9-33 ¶¶ 1-105) as follows:[4]

         MS. BRANNON

         On April 3, 2008, Ms. Brannon was sentenced by the GMC on a misdemeanor charge of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (MC08-0033). Ms. Brannon received a suspended 180-day jail sentence and, as a condition of her probation, the GMC ordered her to enroll in the CRP.

         On November 21, 2008, Ms. Brannon was charged with DUI. On December 18, 2008, an order of contempt was stamped on Ms. Brannon's case action summary sheet and she was ordered to serve five days in jail. There is no written order from the GMC requiring Ms. Brannon to restart or return to the CRP. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Ms. Brannon's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of her suspended sentence for her unlawful possession case. CAF.

         Ms. Brannon was booked into jail on December 18, 2008, pursuant to the contempt order issued by the GMC (pertaining to her DUI charge while still on probation for her unlawful possession charge). She was released on December 23, 2008. On August 19, 2009, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Ms. Brannon had been terminated from the CRP for failure to report for two color-code drug screens and because she allegedly received a new DUI charge on July 31, 2009.

         The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for Ms. Brannon's arrest. On August 28, 2009, a warrant was issued for Ms. Brannon on case number TR08-4028. The warrant was executed on October 20, 2009.

         On October 20, 2009, Ms. Brannon was also sentenced on case number TR08-4028. She received a 60-day jail sentence and an order for 24-months of probation. She was also ordered to enroll in the CRP.

         On January 12, 2010, the ECCRP issued a return to court form, referencing both of Ms. Brannon's case numbers, notifying the GMC that Ms. Brannon had been terminated from the CRP because she had provided a diluted sample for a drug test and had trace amounts of marijuana in her sample. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for her arrest.

         On February 17, 2010, the GMC issued a warrant for Ms. Brannon on case number MC08-0033-the unlawful possession case. The warrant was executed on March 24, 2010, and Ms. Brannon was arrested. Ms. Brannon spent one day in jail, as she was released on the same day.

         On April 15, 2011, the ECCRP issued a return to court form, referencing both of Ms. Brannon's case numbers, notifying the GMC that Ms. Brannon had been terminated from the CRP because she had not attended enough self-help meetings, had failed to report for multiple color-code drug screens, and produced an altered sample. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for her arrest.

         On May 5, 2011, Ms. Brannon was arrested and served five days in jail. She was released on May 10, 2011. There is no written contempt order nor is there a written order to restart, resume, or return to the CRP. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Ms. Brannon's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of her suspended sentence for either one of her misdemeanor cases. CAF.

         On May 16, 2011, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Ms. Brannon had failed to report to the CRP after her release from jail on May 10, 2011. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for her arrest.

         On January 26, 2012, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Ms. Brannon had been terminated from the CRP because of her failure to report for two color-code drug screens. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for her arrest.

         Spanning the course of four years, there is only one contempt order stamped on Ms. Brannon's case action summaries. There are no written orders from the GMC that require Ms. Brannon to restart, resume, or return to the CRP after she had been terminated from it due to noncompliance. Likewise, there are no written probation revocation orders, probation extension orders, or orders extending Ms. Brannon's suspended sentence(s). At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Ms. Brannon's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of her suspended sentence for either one of her misdemeanor cases. CAF.

         As noted above, Ms. Brannon received a suspended sentence in her original case (MC08-0033) on March 3, 2008. Ms. Brannon contends that the statutory maximum period for probation, the suspended sentence, and/or her compliance with the CRP should have expired on March 3, 2010, for that possession of drug paraphernalia offense. Ms. Brannon additionally received a suspended sentence in her second misdemeanor case (TR08-8028) on October 20, 2009. Ms. Brannon contends that the statutory maximum period for that DUI case expired on October 20, 2011.

         Ms. Brannon continued to be subjected to the CRP requirements until at least January 2012. After October 20, 2011, Ms. Brannon was scheduled for at least one CRP evaluation, monitored by the ECCRP at least fifteen times, color-coded at least fifteen times, called by the ECCRP at least once, returned to the GMC at least twice, and required to attend the CRP self-help meetings. Ms. Brannon was also charged drug testing fees, monitoring fees, and/or late fees at least 38 times. Ms. Brannon maintains that she was also arrested and incarcerated as a direct result of her failure or inability to comply with the CRP requirements after the statutory maximum period had expired.

         MR. DUBOSE

         On October 6, 2009, Mr. DuBose was sentenced by the GMC on a misdemeanor charge of DUI (TR09-2369). Mr. DuBose received a suspended 180-day jail sentence and, as a condition of probation, was ordered to enroll in the CRP.

         On January 15, 2010, Mr. DuBose received from the ECCRP and signed a notice requiring him to appear in the GMC on January 21, 2010, because of testing positive for opiates. That same notice has a contempt stamp from the GMC dated January 21, 2010, showing that Mr. DuBose was found in contempt and ordered to serve five days in jail. The GMC record does not show any contempt stamps at all.

         On March 31, 2010, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. DuBose had been terminated from the CRP because he failed to attend a required monitoring session, treatment assessment, and color-code drug screening. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for Mr. DuBose's arrest.

         On April 28, 2010, the GMC issued a warrant for Mr. DuBose's arrest. The warrant was executed on May 13, 2010, and Mr. DuBose was arrested. There is no written order from the GMC requiring Mr. DuBose to restart, resume, or return to the CRP after his termination from it, his subsequent arrest, and release from jail. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. DuBose's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his DUI case. CAF.

         Mr. DuBose returned to the ECCRP on May 19, 2010, when he signed a new color-code agreement. On February 7, 2011, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. DuBose has been terminated from the CRP for his failure to attend required monitoring sessions and his failure to report for a color-code drug screen. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for his arrest for these CRP violations.

         The GMC issued the warrant on February 23, 2011. The warrant was executed on May 8, 2011, and Mr. DuBose was arrested. Mr. Dubose served twelve days in the county jail and on May 20, 2011, he was released to Rapha, a mental health and substance abuse treatment center located in Attalla, Alabama. Mr. DuBose was released from Rapha on August 27, 2011, and his written “exit information” does not mention anything about needing to report back to the ECCRP to complete the CRP.

         After the ECCRP provided the GMC with notice of Mr. DuBose noncompliance with the CRP in February 2011, there is no written order from the GMC requiring Mr. DuBose to restart, resume, or return to the CRP upon his release from Rapha. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. DuBose's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his DUI case. CAF.

         On September 27, 2011, Mr. DuBose returned to the ECCRP and signed a new color-code agreement and a new CRP case management plan. On May 10, 2012, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. DuBose had been terminated from the CRP due to his failure to attend required monitory sessions and his failure to report for color-code drug screens. The form also requested the GMC to set a show cause hearing.

         In January of 2013, Mr. DuBose appeared in the GMC and requested to serve out the remainder of his sentence in jail. There are no written orders by the GMC for Mr. DuBose to restart, resume, or return to the CRP after he was terminated multiple times for noncompliance. There are likewise no written probation revocation orders, probation extension orders, or orders extending the suspended sentence from the GMC. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. DuBose's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his DUI case. CAF.

         As noted above, Mr. DuBose received a suspended sentence for his DUI case on October 6, 2009. Mr. DuBose maintains that because there are no written revocation or extension orders from the GMC, the statutory maximum period for probation, suspended sentence, and/or compliance with the CRP for his case expired on October 6, 2011.

         Mr. DuBose continued to be subjected to the CRP requirements until, at least, May 20, 2012. After October 6, 2011, he was color-coded at least 21 times, scheduled for at least one monitoring session, required to report to the ECCRP at least four times, called by the ECCRP at least one time, returned to GMC at least once, and required to attend self-help meetings. Mr. DuBose was also required to pay drug-testing fees, monitoring fees, and/or late fees at least ten times. Mr. DuBose maintains that he was also arrested and incarcerated as a direct result of his failure or inability to comply with the CRP requirements after the statutory maximum period had expired.

         MR. LOYD

         On July 1, 2003, Mr. Loyd appeared before the GMC on two misdemeanor charges (MC03-222 and MC03-223). According to the Order of Suspended Sentence entered by the GMC, Mr. Loyd was sentenced to 30 days in jail, which was suspended, and 24-months of unsupervised probation. Mr. Loyd also was ordered to attend a substance abuse program. Apparently, Mr. Loyd enrolled in the CRP run by the ECCRP for his substance abuse treatment. CAF.

         On September 2, 2004, the ECCRP issued a return to court form referencing only case number MC03-222 and notifying the GMC that Mr. Loyd had been terminated from the CRP for failure to report for color-code drug screens “since he was returned to [it] in July.” There are no written orders from the GMC ordering Mr. Loyd to return to the CRP at any time. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Loyd's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his misdemeanor case(s).[5] CAF.

         On September 22, 2009, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Loyd had been terminated from the CRP with respect to case number 09-461, which is an Attalla Municipal Court case. Neither of Mr. Loyd's case numbers pending before the GMC from 2003 are referenced on this typed order, except for a handwritten note on the bottom that reads “11-24-09, GM Ct. 5 days contempt; walk over upon release MC03-222-PI.”

         In a footnote, Plaintiffs speculate that this handwritten reference to MC03-222-PI indicates that Mr. Loyd was found in contempt by the GMC and ordered to serve 5 days in jail. However, there is no typed contempt order from the GMC pertaining to MC03-222-PI. Additionally, there is no typed order from the GMC requiring Mr. Loyd to “walk over upon release, ” restart, resume, or return to the CRP in either of Mr. Loyd's 2003 GMC cases.

         On November 24, 2009, Mr. Loyd was arrested. He was released on November 29, 2009. There are no written orders from the GMC ordering Mr. Loyd to restart, resume, or return to the CRP after this arrest and release from jail. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Loyd's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his misdemeanor case(s). CAF.

         On April 1, 2010, the ECCRP issued a return to court form referencing three case numbers, including MC03-222, and notifying the GMC that Mr. Loyd had been terminated from the CRP for failure to report after his release from jail on March 3, 2010. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for Mr. Loyd's arrest.

         On March 1, 2011, there is a notation in Mr. Loyd's ECCRP Case Management Contact Record that he is to “re-enroll per Judge Rhea.” This contact record has three case numbers written on the top, including MC03-222. This notation does not clearly indicate for which case or cases Mr. Loyd was ordered to re-enroll. There also is no written order from the GMC for MC03-222 requiring Mr. Loyd to “re-enroll” in the CRP. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Loyd's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his misdemeanor case(s). CAF.

         On March 14, 2011, Mr. Loyd signed a new color-code agreement with the CRP, but there are no case numbers indicated on the agreement. On November 3, 2011, the ECCRP issued a return to court form referencing two case numbers, including MC03-222, and notifying the GMC that Mr. Loyd had been terminated from the CRP for failure to report for color-code drugs screens. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for Mr. Loyd's arrest.

         On February 3, 2012, the ECCRP issued a return to court form, referencing three case numbers, including MC03-222, and notifying the GMC that Mr. Loyd had been terminated from the CRP for his failure to re-enroll after he was released from Attalla City Jail. The form also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for Mr. Loyd's arrest. There are no written court orders in MC03-222 requiring Mr. Loyd to re-enroll in the CRP after an arrest or release from the Attalla City Jail. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Loyd's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his misdemeanor case(s) upon his release from the Attalla City Jail. CAF.

         On March 27, 2012, Mr. Loyd signed a new color-code agreement with the ECCRP. This document lacks any reference to any pending case numbers. On April 13, 2012, the ECCRP noted on a return to court form, referencing MC03-222, that this case had been closed per Judge King's order. The form was not sent to the GMC.

         There are no written orders from the GMC for Mr. Loyd to restart, resume, or return to the CRP after he was terminated for noncompliance with the CRP or arrested and placed in the Attalla City Jail. There are likewise no written probation revocation orders or orders extending the suspended sentence from the GMC. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Loyd's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor case(s). CAF.

         As noted above, Mr. Loyd received a suspended sentence on March 13, 2003. Mr. Loyd maintains that because there are no written revocation or extension orders from the GMC, the statutory maximum term for probation, the suspended sentence, and/or compliance with the CRP expired on March 13, 2005.

         Mr. Loyd continued to be subjected to the CRP requirements until his GMC case was closed on April 13, 2012. After March 13, 2005, Mr. Loyd was color-coded at least 18 times, scheduled for at least one evaluation, monitored by the ECCRP at least three times, required to report to the ECCRP at least two times, was called by the ECCRP at least one time, returned to GMC at least twice, and required to attend self-help meetings. Mr. Loyd was also required to pay drug-testing fees, monitoring fees, and/or late fees at least seven times.

         MR. LYNN

         On January 25, 2007, Mr. Lynn appeared before the GMC on a misdemeanor DUI case (TR06-5143). Mr. Lynn received a 180-day jail sentence, which was suspended, and 24-months of probation. He was also ordered to undergo a substance abuse evaluation by the ECCRP.

         On March 13, 2007, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Lynn had been terminated from the CRP because he had failed to report for two color-code drug screens. Ms. Zaner signed this form and requested the GMC to issue a warrant for Mr. Lynn's arrest.

         On October 13, 2008, the GMC issued a warrant for Mr. Lynn's arrest. On August 29, 2009, the warrant was executed and Mr. Lynn was arrested. There is an order of contempt stamped on Mr. Lynn's GMC record showing that he was found in contempt and ordered to serve 35 days.

         Mr. Lynn served five days in the county jail and on September 1, 2009, he was released to Rapha. Mr. Lynn was released from Rapha on October 23, 2009. Mr. Lynn's “exit information” from Rapha notes that he was supposed to report back to the CRP upon his release from Rapha, but there is no written GMC order to that effect. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Lynn's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his DUI case. CAF.

         On October 26, 2009, Mr. Lynn signed a new color-code agreement with the ECCRP and, on November 12, 2009, he signed a new case management plan. On March 17, 2010, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Lynn had been terminated from the CRP for failure to report for color-code drug screening. The form, signed by Ms. Zaner, also requested the GMC to issue a warrant for Mr. Lynn's arrest.

         On April 12, 2010, the GMC issued a warrant for Mr. Lynn's arrest. The warrant was executed on July 3, 2012, and Mr. Lynn was arrested. Mr. Lynn served two days in jail and was released on July 5, 2012.

         On July 12, 2012, Mr. Lynn's case was closed per Judge King's order. There are no written GMC orders for Mr. Lynn to restart, resume, or return to the CRP after he was terminated multiple times for noncompliance. There are likewise no written GMC orders of probation revocation, probation extension, or extensions of the suspended sentence. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Lynn's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor DUI case. CAF.

         As set out above, Mr. Lynn was sentenced on January 25, 2007. Mr. Lynn maintains that because there are no written revocation or extension orders from the GMC, the statutory maximum period for probation, suspended sentence, and/or compliance with the CRP expired on January 25, 2009. Mr. Lynn continued to be subjected to the ECCRP requirements until his case was closed on July 12, 2012.

         After January 25, 2009, Mr. Lynn was color-coded at least eleven times, scheduled for at least one evaluation and three ECCRP monitoring sessions, was called by the ECCRP at least once, required to report to the ECCRP at least twice, and required to attend self-help meetings. Mr. Lynn was also required to pay drug-testing fees, monitoring fees, and/or late fees at least ten times. Mr. Lynn maintains that he was also arrested and incarcerated as a direct result of his failure or inability to comply with the CRP requirements after the statutory maximum period had expired.

         MR. MYERS

         On March 3, 2006, Mr. Myers was sentenced by the GMC on a misdemeanor charge of minor in possession of alcohol (MC06-0238). Mr. Myers received youthful offender status, a suspended 30-day jail sentence, and was ordered to enroll in the CRP.

         On April 17, 2006, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Myers had been terminated from the CRP because he failed to report for his scheduled evaluation appointments. The form is signed by Ms. Zaner and she requested that the GMC issue a warrant for Mr. Myers's arrest.

         On January 20, 2007, Mr. Myers was arrested and ordered to serve five days in jail for contempt. There does not appear to be any written GMC order to re-start or resume the CRP after his release. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Myers's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor case. CAF.

         On September 27, 2007, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Myers had been terminated from the CRP because he failed to report for two color-code drug screens. Ms. Zaner signed the form and requested that the GMC issue a warrant for his arrest. On March 3, 2008, an alias warrant was issued for Mr. Myers. The alias warrant was executed on March 29, 2009, and Mr. Myers was arrested. There do not appear to be any written orders from the GMC for Mr. Myers to restart, resume, or return to the CRP after his termination due to his noncompliance or his arrest and release. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Myers's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor case. CAF.

         On December 1, 2009, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Myers had been terminated from the CRP because he failed to report for three color-code drug screens. The form also requested that the GMC issue a warrant for his arrest.

         On January 15, 2010, a warrant was issued for Mr. Myers's arrest. The warrant was executed and Mr. Myers was arrested on February 11, 2010. He served five days for contempt and was released on February 16, 2010.

         On February 11, 2010, an order of contempt was stamped on Mr. Myers's case action summary sheet finding Mr. Myers in contempt of compliance with the CRP and ordering him to serve five days in jail. There does not appear to be a written order from the GMC for Mr. Myers to restart, resume, or return to the CRP following his termination from the CRP or his arrest and release from jail. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Myers's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor case. CAF.

         On March 15, 2010, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Myers has been terminated from the CRP because he failed to report to three color-code drug screens. Ms. Zaner signed this form and she requested that the GMC issue a warrant for Mr. Myers's arrest.

         On April 12, 2010, a warrant was issued for Mr. Myers's arrest. The warrant was executed on April 29, 2010, and Mr. Myers was arrested. He was released from jail on May 9, 2010.

         On June 3, 2010, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Myers had been terminated from the CRP because he failed to attend an evaluation appointment and he failed to report for a color-code screening. The form also requested that the GMC issue a warrant for Mr. Myers's arrest. On June 8, 2010, a warrant was issued for Mr. Myers's arrest. On January 22, 2011, the warrant was executed and Mr. Myers was arrested.

         On January 25, 2011, an order of contempt was stamped on Mr. Myers's case action summary sheet finding him in contempt of compliance with the CRP and ordering him to serve five days in jail. There does not appear to be a written order from the GMC for Mr. Myers to restart, resume, or return to the CRP. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Myers's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor case. CAF.

         Mr. Myers was released from jail on January 28, 2011. On this date, Mr. Myers was also reactivated in the CRP. On February 15, 2011, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Myers had been terminated from the program because he failed to attend an evaluation. The form also requested that the GMC issue a warrant for Mr. Myers's arrest.

         On March 4, 2011, the GMC issued a warrant for Mr. Myers's arrest. The warrant was executed and Mr. Myers was arrested on the same day. Mr. Myers served 30 days in jail and was released on April 4, 2011.

         There does not appear to be any written revocation orders or orders of contempt in this instance. Nor does there appear to be any written order requiring Mr. Myers to restart, resume, or return to the CRP. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Myers's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor case. CAF.

         On April 26, 2011, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Myers had been terminated from the CRP because he failed to attend an evaluation and because he failed to report for three color-code screens. There is a request for the GMC to issue a warrant for Mr. Myers's arrest.

         On April 29, 2011, a warrant was issued for Mr. Myers's arrest. On June 27, 2011, the warrant was executed and Mr. Myers was arrested. Mr. Myers was in jail until July 1, 2011, when he was released to Rapha for substance abuse treatment. Mr. Myers stayed there until July 26, 2011.

         On July 26, 2011, the day he was released from Rapha, Mr. Myers signed a new color-code agreement with the ECCRP. Mr. Myers also signed a case management plan with the ECCRP on August 5, 2011. The record does not include any written orders from GMC for Mr. Myers to restart, resume, or return to the CRP. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Myers's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor case. CAF.

         On October 12, 2011, the ECCRP issued a return to court form notifying the GMC that Mr. Myers had been terminated from the CRP because he failed to report for three color-code drug screens. The form requested the GMC to issue a warrant for Mr. Myers's arrest.

         There are no GMC written orders for Mr. Myers to restart, resume, or return to the CRP after any of his terminations from the CRP. There are likewise no written probation revocation or extension orders from the GMC. At the same time, the record lacks any evidence of a written order from the GMC indicating that Mr. Myers's obligation to complete the CRP was no longer a condition of his suspended sentence for his GMC misdemeanor case. CAF.

         As noted above, Mr. Myers was sentenced on March 3, 2006. Mr. Myers maintains that because there are no written revocation or extension orders from the GMC, the statutory maximum term for probation and/or compliance with the CRP expired on March 3, 2008. In total, Mr. Myers served well beyond the 30-days in jail he was originally sentenced to, between various contempt orders and the time he served in jail and at Rapha.

         Mr. Myers continued to be subjected to the CRP requirements until, at least, October 12, 2011. After March 3, 2008, he was color-coded at least 34 times, scheduled for at least two ECCRP evaluations, monitored by the ECCRP at least four times, required to report to the ECCRP at least seven times, was called by the ECCRP at least two times, returned to GMC at least six times, and required to attend self-help meetings. Mr. Myers maintains he was also required to pay drug-testing fees, monitoring fees, and/or late fees at least thirteen times. Mr. Myers further asserts that he was arrested and incarcerated as a direct result of his failure or inability to comply with the CRP requirements after the statutory maximum period had expired.

         MS. SNOW

         On September 13, 2007, Ms. Snow appeared before the GMC on a misdemeanor charge (MC07-1361). She received youthful offender status, a deferred sentence of ...


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.