Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03812/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03812-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley L. Frenchie
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3812

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Stanley L. Frenchie, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 9, 2005

Filed: May 20, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On August 25, 2004, Stanley Frenchie was charged with violating the

conditions of his supervised release by committing a residential burglary, in violation

of state law. The district court held that Frenchie violated the conditions of his

release and sentenced him to twenty-two months' imprisonment. This appeal

followed. Frenchie raises a Sixth Amendment challenge to the use of an out-of-court

statement at his revocation hearing. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-3812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905161
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

At Frenchie's revocation hearing the government presented one witness, Officer

Wilkison, one of the officers who investigated the burglaries at issue. Officer

Wilkison testified that on the evening in question he responded to two separate

burglary calls at an apartment complex in St. Charles, Missouri. After completing his

investigation at the first burglary, and after arriving at the scene of the second, he

received information from his dispatch describing a suspicious person who had

ducked between two apartment buildings and was walking away. Given that

information, Officer Wilkison drove around the vicinity to locate this individual and

eventually pulled over Frenchie in his car because Frenchie matched the description

provided by dispatch. 

Officer Wilkison noticed Frenchie's shoes were muddy and asked him to step

out of the car. There had been muddy footprints at the scene of one of the burglaries.

Upon searching the vehicle, Officer Wilkison seized several pieces of jewelry,

including a class ring bearing the name of one of the burglary victims, brown gloves,

a cell phone, cash, and a screw driver that was consistent with a pry mark left at one

of the burglary scenes he investigated. Officer Wilkison then took Frenchie into

custody. 

Officer Wilkison referenced an out-of-court statement during his direct

examination that was made by one of the burglary victims, Jerrod Groce. Officer

Wilkison testified that Groce said that his door was locked before the burglary and

that the porch door had been pried open. 

II. DISCUSSION

We review constitutional questions de novo. United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d

840, 844 (8th Cir. 2004). Frenchie argues that under the Sixth Amendment he had

Appellate Case: 04-3812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905161
-3-

a right to confront Groce at his revocation hearing, citing Crawford v. Washington,

541 U.S. 36 (2004). Confrontation right violations are subject to the harmless error

analysis found in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967), which requires that

the error be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Chapman, 356

F.3d 843, 846 (8th Cir. 2004). "'When the evidence of a defendant's guilt is

overwhelming, appellate courts have held that violations of the confrontation clause

by the admission of hearsay statements are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280, 290 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v.

Williams, 181 F.3d 945, 952 (8th Cir. 1999)), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2435 (2004).

This is such a case so we need not address Frenchie's Sixth Amendment argument.

The district court had a sufficient basis upon which to make its determination

regarding Frenchie's revocation without Officer Wilkison's testimony of what Groce

said. Although Frenchie argues that the district court revoked his supervised release

based entirely on Groce's out-of-court statement, we disagree. As noted above, the

district court based its revocation determination on the direct testimony of Officer

Wilkison, who substantiated Frenchie's participation in the burglaries with his

personal knowledge. Groce's statement was certainly not "the only bases for any type

of finding that Mr. Frenchie committed a violation of his supervised release," as

Frenchie argues. 

Based on Officer Wilkison's first-hand knowledge and testimony, we know that

Frenchie was present in the burglarized area within minutes of the time the second

burglary was reported, he matched the description that dispatch provided Officer

Wilkison, he possessed a screw driver that matched the pry mark on the door of an

apartment that had been burglarized, he carried brown gloves in the front seat of his

car, his muddy shoes were consistent with the muddy shoe prints left at one of the

burglaries, he had numerous pieces of jewelry in the front seat of his car, and he

attempted to hide that jewelry when Officer Wilkison asked him to step out of his

vehicle. Without considering any of the challenged evidence, the district court had

Appellate Case: 04-3812 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905161
-4-

sufficient properly admitted evidence to conclude that Frenchie participated in a

burglary and thereby violated the conditions of his supervised release. At most,

Officer Wilkison's testimony regarding Groce's statement was superfluous and did not

contribute to the district court's conclusion. Thus, its admission, even if erroneous,

was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3812 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/20/2005 Entry ID: 1905161