Motion for Pre-Plea Presentence Report and for Continuance — United States v. Aticha Jittaphol (D. Mass.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · No. 1:21-cr-10270-MLW · Doc. 28 · 2022-01-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States of America   
 
 
 
No. 21-CR-10270-MLW                             
        v. 
Aticha Jittaphol 
 
 
     
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PRE-PLEA PRESENTENCE REPORT  
AND FOR CONTINUANCE 
Assented to by Government 
 
 
 
Aticha Jittaphol hereby moves the Court to order a complete pre-plea 
Presentence Report to be prepared. The defendant moves the Court to continue a 
hearing set for January 28th, at which the parties were to address the justification 
for the plea agreement, for thirty days, or until Probation completes a pre-plea 
Presentence Report, including an interview of Ms. Jittaphol, whichever is longer. 
And the defendant moves to continue the filing date for the parties to submit 
memoranda in support of the Court’s acceptance of the plea agreement until one 
week prior to the hearing. The government assents. 
 
There is no dispute regarding guidelines calculations. However, a 
Presentence Report may be of significant assistance in the Court’s assessment of 
the appropriateness of the plea agreement for several reasons. 
 
The Court expressed concern that Ms. Jittaphol was not taking her criminal 
conduct or the conditions of probation seriously, and that the plea agreement 
could further this cavalier attitude. The defendant believes that a Presentence 
Report would be useful in addressing this concern. A Report would provide the 
Court with a greater understanding of Ms. Jittaphol’s background, character, 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 28     Filed 01/21/22     Page 1 of 4

 
2 
struggle with transgender issues, and methamphetamine addiction.   
 
The Court expressed concern over whether Ms. Jittaphol’s failure to go into 
long-term in-patient residential drug treatment was an indication that the plea 
agreement failed to convey to her the seriousness of her offense and supervised 
release. A Presentence Report could provide useful information concerning her 
reasons for declining further in-patient treatment, her commitment to sobriety, her 
readiness to follow the Court’s instructions, and whether her failure to enter 
additional in-patient care reflects a disregard of her obligations. A Report could 
help explain why Ms. Jittaphol feels confident that she can remain sober and 
avoid relapse without further in-patient treatment. 
 
The delay that would result from allowing a Presentence Report to be 
prepared now would allow additional time for Ms. Jittaphol to be drug tested, 
and to demonstrate to Probation and the Court that her rejection of further in-
patient treatment was not an act of defiance or disregard, but an accurate 
assessment of her treatment needs.   
 
The issue of drug treatment and Ms. Jittaphol’s failure to continue in-
patient treatment is connected to the issue of the appropriateness of the plea 
agreement. Counsel seeks additional time to confer with Probation about 
eliminating a condition of in-patient residential treatment. There are objective 
criteria that are consistent with the applicable standard of care for determining 
when in-patient residential drug treatment is appropriate. Counsel seeks some 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 28     Filed 01/21/22     Page 2 of 4

 
3 
additional time to review these criteria with Probation, and to allow Probation to 
confer with the Hope Center regarding their clinical assessment.  
  
Finally, the defendant seeks a continuance to provide the Court with the 
sort of information concerning who she is that would usually be provided at the 
time of sentencing. In the routine case, letters from friends or family, evidence of 
community service, and other materials that provide the Court with a better 
understanding of the defendant, are provided shortly before sentencing, not at the 
time of a change of plea. But in this case, the decision to accept or reject the “C” 
plea agreement essentially substitutes for the discretion usually exercised at 
sentencing. Consequently, it is important for the Court to have these materials 
when deciding whether to accept the plea agreement. The defendant seeks 
additional time to put these materials together. 
This same reasoning supports preparation of a complete pre-plea 
Presentence Report. Usually, the Court considers the Report at the time of 
sentencing. But here, the Court’s decision concerning whether to accept the plea 
agreement essentially substitutes for sentencing, and the Court should have the 
benefit of the Presentence Report when making this decision. 
For these reasons, the Court should order that a pre-plea Presentence 
Report be prepared, and further order that a hearing on whether the Court should 
accept the plea agreement be continued for a period of thirty days or until a 
Presentence Report is completed, and that the parties should submit memoranda 
no later than one week prior to the hearing. 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 28     Filed 01/21/22     Page 3 of 4

 
4 
ATTICHA JITTAPHOL 
By her Attorney, 
 
/s/ Keith Halpern 
Keith Halpern, BBO # 545282  
572 Washington Street, Suite 19 
Wellesley, MA 02482 
(617) 722-9952 
 
 
 
  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that this document, filed through the ECF system, will be sent 
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing 
(NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on 
January 21, 2022. 
/s/ Keith Halpern 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 28     Filed 01/21/22     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.237964.28.0.pdf

Size

100,157 bytes

SHA-256

4bafd721e9c77fa049907be2de91ff965a8597497cecccf248dd149dc5504aad

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.237964.28.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)