Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01293/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01293-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Robert Ralph
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1293

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

John Robert Ralph, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2007

Filed: March 30, 2007

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

John Robert Ralph's supervised release was revoked after the district court1

determined that Ralph violated two conditions of his supervised release. Ralph

appeals, arguing that the district court erroneously relied on the inconsistent testimony

of one government witness in revoking his supervised release and that insufficient

evidence exists that he failed to timely report an arrest to justify revocation of his

supervised release. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 06-1293 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293662
-2-

I. Background

Ralph was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Ralph to a term of imprisonment

of one year and one day, to be followed by three years of supervised release. 

At the time of Ralph's federal sentence, he had been charged in the Circuit

Court of Wayne County, Missouri, with attempted sodomy in the first degree for

committing a deviant sex act with a child less than 14 years old. After his release from

federal prison, Ralph was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for the state charge.

However, his sentence was suspended, and he was placed on five years' probation. As

a special condition of that probation, Ralph was prohibited from having unsupervised

contact with minor children other than his biological children. 

Ralph subsequently became involved with Karen Reed. Reed had three

children, one of which was L.R., an 11-year-old girl. Ralph began spending nights at

Reed's residence. According to L.R., shortly before midnight one evening, Ralph

entered her bedroom, walked over to her bed, and put his hand under her shorts. She

said that he inserted his fingers into her vagina and fondled her for 20 minutes. She

said that Ralph instructed her not to tell anyone and that they might do it again another

time. 

Thereafter, Reed received information that Ralph was a convicted sex offender.

She asked her children if Ralph had inappropriately touched them, and L.R. told Reed

that Ralph had entered her bedroom and fondled her. Reed immediately reported the

incident to authorities. A Missouri Division of Family Services (DFS) worker

interviewed L.R. about the molestation event and made a tape of the interview. 

Ralph was arrested on a warrant charging him with violating the terms of his

state probation. According to the United States Probation Office, Ralph failed to

Appellate Case: 06-1293 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293662
-3-

report this arrest. Ralph was found to have violated the terms of his state probation

and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. 

Subsequently, a federal arrest warrant was issued for Ralph based on a petition

to revoke his supervised release. The petition alleged two violations of supervised

release: (1) that Ralph committed a state crime by molesting L.R. and (2) that he failed

to notify his probation officer within 72 hours of being arrested or questioned by a law

enforcement officer. 

The United States Probation Office prepared a Sentencing Computation

Summary. The report reflected that molestation is a Grade A violation under U.S.S.G.

§ 7B1.1(a)(1)(A)(ii). The allegation of failing to report the arrest is a Grade C

violation under § 7B1.1(a)(3)(B). Ralph's presentence investigation report for the prior

federal crime reflected a Category I criminal history, meaning that if the district court

found that Ralph violated the conditions of his supervised release, he would be

exposed to a maximum statutory range of two years and an advisory Guidelines range

of 12 to 18 months. 

At the conclusion of Ralph's revocation hearing, the district court found that

Ralph violated both supervised release conditions and sentenced Ralph to 16 months'

imprisonment to be served consecutively to his 10-year term of state imprisonment.

Additionally, the district court ordered Ralph to serve a 20-month term of supervised

release after his release from federal prison. 

II. Discussion

Ralph argues that the district court abused its discretion in revoking his

supervised release (1) because of inconsistencies between L.R.'s testimony at the

Appellate Case: 06-1293 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293662
2

Ralph notes approximately six inconsistencies between L.R.'s testimony at the

revocation hearing and her statements to the DFS worker. First, while L.R. testified

at the revocation hearing that she was wearing a T-shirt and shorts on the evening of

the alleged molestation, she told the DFS worker that she could not remember what

type of clothing she was wearing. Second, at the hearing, L.R. stated that Ralph put

his hand down her pants and inserted "them" into her vagina; in contrast, she told the

DFS worker that Ralph touched her with his hand and put his finger inside of her.

Third, L.R. testified at the hearing that Ralph told her that they might do it again

another time, while she failed to tell the DFS worker about this statement. Fourth,

while L.R. testified at the hearing that Ralph was in her room for approximately 20

minutes, she was unable to tell the DFS worker how long Ralph was in her room.

Fifth, L.R. testified at the hearing that she was not angry or upset on the evening of

the alleged molestation, but she told the DFS worker that she was "mad." Finally, L.R.

testified at the hearing that she learned from her mother that Ralph was a previously

convicted sex offender; in contrast, she told the DFS worker that she knew before the

molestation that Ralph had molested his step daughter. 

-4-

revocation hearing and her statements to the DFS worker2

 and (2) because there was

insufficient evidence that he failed to timely report his arrest to the United States

Probation Office. 

We review the district court's decision to revoke the defendant's supervised

release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019

(8th Cir. 2003). We review for clear error the district court's factual findings as to

whether a violation occurred. Id. 

In Carothers, the defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion

in revoking her supervised release because "the only evidence presented—'he said, she

said' testimony—was insufficient to prove that she attempted to injure the alleged

victim . . . ." Id. We noted that, in revoking the defendant's supervised release, the

district court had "implicitly found that the alleged victim's testimony was credible

and that [the defendant's testimony] was not credible." Id. Because such credibility

determinations are "virtually unreviewable on appeal," we held that "the district

Appellate Case: 06-1293 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293662
-5-

court's conclusion that [the defendant] committed the assault was not clearly

erroneous." Id.

As in Carothers, the district court implicitly determined that L.R. was credible

and that Ralph was not. Likewise, the district court credited United States Probation

Officer Sherry Persinger's testimony that Ralph failed to report his arrest. Because the

district court had a distinct advantage at evaluating the credibility of Ralph, L.R., and

Persinger, and because such credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on

appeal, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Ralph violated

the conditions of his supervised release. "Furthermore, upon finding that [Ralph]

violated [two] express term[s] of [his] supervised release, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in ordering revocation." Id.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1293 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/30/2007 Entry ID: 3293662