Inmate Charged With Failing To Report To Halfway House
For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Pennsylvania
HARRISBURG- The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Dyckman Martinez, age 34, previously of York, Pennsylvania, was indicted on May 3, 2017, by a federal grand jury for failing to appear at a halfway house in Harrisburg for service of his sentence.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the indictment alleges that in July 2014, Martinez was furloughed from the Federal Correctional Institution in Ottisville, New York, and instructed to report to the Residential Re-Entry Center at Capitol Pavilion in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to complete his sentence. Martinez failed to appear at the residential center. As a result, federal authorities issued a warrant for his arrest.
In September 2014, Martinez was arrested in New York City on drug related charges. New York officials prosecuted Martinez and sentenced him for the crimes he committed while on escape. Martinez has remained in prison since serving a sentence.
In 2010, Martinez was convicted in the Middle District of Pennsylvania for crack cocaine trafficking in York, Pennsylvania. He was sentenced U.S. District Court Judge H. Sylvia Rambo to 70 months’ imprisonment for that offense.
The case was investigated by the U.S. Marshal Service. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Consiglio is prosecuting the case.
Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.
A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The maximum penalty under federal law for this offense is five years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.
# # #
Updated May 4, 2017