United States of America v. Michelle Kay Jarrett

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHELLE KAY JARRETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50277
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-01083-MWF-
VAP-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,**
Senior District Judge.
Appellant Michelle Kay Jarrett appeals her termination from the Central
FILED
FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge for the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by
designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

District of California’s Conviction and Sentence Alternatives (“CASA”) post-plea
diversion program. Jarrett alleges she was denied due process and equal protection
rights because her termination from CASA was the result of non-compliance
primarily caused by her impoverished status.1
In Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that “there can be no equal
justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.”
461 U.S. 660, 664, 103 S. Ct. 2064, 76 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1983) (quoting Griffin v.
Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19, 76 S. Ct. 585, 591, 100 L. Ed. 891 (1956) (plurality
opinion)). The inability to pay a fine or restitution, despite “all reasonable efforts to
pay” and “through no fault of his own,” cannot result in automatic incarceration
without the consideration of alternative methods of punishment. Id. at 668-69.
The record establishes that Jarrett was not terminated from CASA because
of indigency. The court tried numerous alternative sanctions designed to direct
Jarrett back into compliance prior to terminating her. Jarrett was terminated
because of her pattern of consistent, willful non-compliance. The district court
therefore did not abuse its discretion in terminating Jarrett from the CASA
program.
1The government contends Jarrett waived her right to appeal her termination
from CASA. We do not address this issue.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --