United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ORDER ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC.
SOROKIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Douglas Trapp (“Trapp”), proceeding pro se, filed
a one-ground petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, stemming from the revocation of his
probation. Doc. No. 1. Respondent Michael Corsini
(“Corsini”) has submitted an opposition to
Trapp's petition, raising three grounds for denial. Doc.
No. 36. As explained below, Trapp's petition
2, 2005, Trapp pled guilty to a two-count indictment of rape
of a child and indecent assault and battery of a person over
the age of fourteen. Doc. No. 36-1 at 5. He received a prison
sentence of between four and five years for the former
offense, and three years of probation from and after for the
latter offense. Id. Among other probation
conditions, Trapp had to undergo mental health counselling
and receive sex offender treatment. Id. at 6. Trapp
finished his term of imprisonment on November 9, 2009.
1, 2010, Trapp appeared before a state court judge for
violating the aforementioned mental health counseling and sex
offender treatment conditions. Id. The judge ordered
him to meet this conditions and found him in violation of his
parole. Id. On June 9, 2010, Trapp's probation
transferred to Middlesex County. Id.
Revocation of Trapp's Probation
Nersessian of the Middlesex Probation Department, and the
person in charge of Trapp's probation, filed a notice
with the Middlesex Superior Court regarding Trapp's
purported parole violations, and the Middlesex Superior Court
held a hearing which began on September 1, 2010. See
id. at 2. Nersessian testified that Trapp's
“probation has been very, very difficult right from the
first office visit, ” id. at 6-7, and that he
has not at all “complied with either getting a mental
health evaluation or participating in sex-offender treatment,
” and “in fact . . . has made it impossible with
the local health community to do that.” Id. at
12. Trapp continually maintained that the mental health and
sex offender treatment conditions were waived on June 1,
2010, and denied he had committed the underlying crimes.
Id. at 7. After Trapp's continued obstinacies,
he agreed to meet with the sex-offender treatment program,
purportedly for an intake. See id. However, at that
intake meeting, he (according to a note sent to Nersessian)
refused to “participate in group because it's
nobody's business what he did or didn't do, and he
doesn't want to hear anyone else's business, and that
the result by that treatment provider was that the group
process is not appropriate for him and he raised the question
mark of mental illness.” Id.
further testified that after Trapp resisted group therapy,
she set up a meeting between Trapp and Sharon Redmond, an
intake worker at the Counseling and Psychotherapy Center
(“CPC”) Area Coordinator, to arrange for
individual counseling for Trapp. Id. at 8. At this
phone meeting, Nersessian testified, Trapp “made
threats against me which alarmed [Redmond] so much that she
called me on my cell phone immediately.” Id.
Specifically, Redmond told Nersessian that Trapp “said
he had no choice but he would go to court on Monday and
destroy you [meaning Nersessian].” Id. at 14.
Based off “the nature of th[is] discussion, ”
Redmond never continued pursuing individual counseling
options for Trapp at CPC. Id. at 15.
testified that she then began pursuing treatment options for
Trapp at the Tri-City/Elliot Center (“TCEC”), the
only facility that would take Trapp, a level three sex
offender. Id. at 15-16. She had successfully
arranged for TCEC to do an intake of Trapp. Id. at
16. On July 21, 2010, Nersessian gave Trapp a form regarding
the mental health evaluation TCEC would perform at the
intake, which Trapp signed. Id. She also left Trapp
a phone message and sent him a letter reminding him to follow
up with this intake and that he could not receive treatment
until he completed a mental health evaluation. Id.
at 18. Trapp resisted this, saying he was only obligated to
receive mental health treatment, and not undergo a mental
health evaluation. Id.
further testified that on August 24, 2010, she received a
phone call from a TCEC clinical director regarding Trapp.
Id. at 19. Trapp had come in and said “he has
absolutely no idea why he's here, ” refused
“to cooperate in mental health evaluation and
treatment, ” again reiterated that “it's
nobody's business, ” and said, “[h]e's
not going to do it.” Id. at 20. Nersessian
summed up Trapp's situation thusly:
So we're stuck. We're stuck on three points. He has
not cooperated with the sex offender counseling, and has told
them that that he's not going to. He has talked his way
out of mental health treatment. And three, he's made it
with this threat against me-not safe to go to his home-and
we're required to go to the sex-offender person's
home . . . . He was quite belligerent in the office during
meetings as well.
testified at the second day of the hearing. Id. at
42. He again asserted that undergoing a mental health
evaluation was not one of his probation conditions.
Id. He also testified that his insurer would not
cover the cost of a mental health evaluation, id. at
43. He further testified that his only income is a Social
Security Disability Insurance check, from which the federal
government garnishes a portion, and that once he spends money
on basic living expenses, he has almost nothing left over.
Id. at 44. At the hearing, Trapp did not provide any
evidence of his financials. On direct examination, ...