By Meladi Brewer

DailyAdocate.com

GREENVILLE — Alleged rapist released on personal recognisance bond. Judge Travis L. Fliehman presided.

Ciro T. Rivera, 42, of Greenville, appeared in court via video conference with the jail for a one count indictment for rape, a felony of the first degree. Rivera also has pending charges in the Municipal Court for one count of gross sexual imposition. The defense had filed a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of Rivera not receiving a speedy trial.

“The problem I have is it is the state’s responsibility, not the defense’s responsibility, to calculate the time and bring someone to trial within the 90 days,” Rohrer said.

Laying out the dates, Rohrer advised Rivera was arrested March 28, 2024, so 90 days from that date would be June 26. Rivera has been in jail since March with a $100,000 bond. It was understood that Prosecuting Attorney Deborah Quigley missed a gray area in the law regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holders.

“The State understands Rivera has an ICE holder. It was the State’s misunderstanding of that. Sanchez (case law) clearly sets that out, and the state obviously missed that when I was looking at this,” Quigley said.

She believed the case fell into the realm of a three for one time period in terms of bringing the defendant to trial. This is not the case, and a motion was filed to rectify the situation to enable Rivera to have the right to a speedy trial.

“I understand my client is an undocumented alien, but he has been here 22 years, manages a restaurant, and pays taxes,” Rohrer said. “The problem is when this trial was set, it was set for Sept. 24 and 25, I argued for an earlier date, but that is the date that was given.”

Rohrer said Quigley must have thought that ICE would hold Rivera in jail as long as they could. Due to the misunderstanding and the ICE holder being a civil matter instead of a criminal, the Court was forced to release Rivera on a personal recognizance bond. The second course of action is either to move to dismiss the case or set up a trial within the next 14 days.

“The defendant, respectfully moves the Court for an order determining that the Indictment filed in this matter is void, and that the above captioned mater is dismissed, with prejudice, and the defendant herein be discharged,” Rohrer said.

He said that the case should be moved to be dismissed because ICE will be called probably at the end of the hearing or when the court makes a decision, and from there, Rohrer said his client will either go to Cleveland or Chicago according to Rivera’s immigration attorney.

“From there, they will deal with the ICE situation. All the while, Rivera will not have a chance to answer for this rape charge,” Rohrer said. “Your Honor, I believe the appropriate disposition in this case to dismiss the rape charge.”

Rohrer understands the charges are serious, nor was he ever doubting it.

“But I believe you should also have some evidence. In this case, she didn’t report for two-and-a-half years, she kept on coming around to my client’s restaurant after this occurred for special parties, and she never went to get checked,” Rohrer said.

Judge Fliehman stopped him, as there were no need to be relaying potential facts of the case that could be outlined in the trial. Rohrer agreed and said he would just like the court to know that if they grant Rivera an OR bond, ICE would pick him up, but this case would be going if it were dismissed, and he would only have to worry about the charges in the municipal court. He said that he believes the Sanchez case clearly outlines what needs to be done.

“Once the motion for the case to be dismissed has been made, the state has 14 days to try the case, so the state is asking the trial be set within those 14 days to be set on or before Aug. 1st,” Quigley said.

In order to correct her misunderstanding with a speedy trial, Quigley said the law states Rivera needs to be released, but it can be with any bond conditions the court deems fit. He will be expected to abide by those conditions.

“The State understands that ICE will pick the defendant up, and he will be taken somewhere but is in fact released on a personal recognisance bond as described by law,” Quigley said.

Quigley said the defense is able to ask for a continuance if the defendant cannot make the trial date.

“Again it would be the defendant’s fault if he cannot be here because the State has released him,” Quigley said. “He could go to Cleveland or wherever with ICE, and they could release him for him to make it for trial. It isn’t certain, but the State believes this is a serious charge, and we have a differing opinion than the defense regarding the facts of the case.”

The State noted that the Grand Jury in fact thought that there were enough sufficient facts to warrant charges, and the statute addresses these type of situation of the case but not dismissal of the case.

“We do have remedies, so we need to release the defendant and set a trial within 14 days,” Quigley said.

The trial was set for the next available date on July 30th, and research will be done by both parties regarding the procedures that can and will take place if Rivera does not show up to trial for matters both in and out of his control.

“What ICE does or does not do is outside of my control,” Judge Fliehman said.

Judge Fliehman asked the attorneys to do research regarding a hypothetical no show “whether voluntarily or involuntarily” and if they can issue an indefinitely warrant, dismissal of the case, or continuance.

“Unfortunately, we’re likely not to continue to know the whereabouts of Mr. Rivera long-term if ICE in fact takes custody of him and begins the deportation process or whatever it might be,” Judge Fliehman said.

The jury has already been pulled for the trial, so they do not have to worry about obtaining a jury in a short amount of time. Rohrer advised the court that ICE has been very inconsistent with the matter.

“Who knows, we all are having a conversation, and ICE may decide to stand down,” Judge Fliehman said. “Lets see what happens because we don’t know. I don’t have any control or communication with ICE. It is outside of my purview, but it is something we need to contemplate procedurally.”

He said he needs to be cognoscente of it while discussing bond. The Court agreed to brief again after they arrive on Tuesday contingent on Rivera’s ability to show or not to discuss how to move forward afterwards.

To contact Daily Advocate Reporter Meladi Brewer, email [email protected].