Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02410/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02410-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenny Eugene Smart
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2410

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Kenny Eugene Smart, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2006

Filed: December 29, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Kenny Smart pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1

 sentenced him to 211

months' imprisonment and imposed special conditions of supervised release designed

to rehabilitate sex offenders and protect the community. Mr. Smart appeals the

imposition of these special conditions of supervised release. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 06-2410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2006 Entry ID: 3263887
-2-

I.

We have previously held that sentencing judges are afforded "wide discretion

when imposing terms of supervised release." United States v. Behler, 187 F.3d 772,

778 (8th Cir. 1999). "A sentencing judge may impose conditions on supervised

release if (1) the conditions are reasonably related to [certain] sentencing factors

identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); (2) the conditions do not deprive the defendant of

liberty to a greater degree than is reasonably necessary; and (3) the conditions are

consistent with any relevant policy statements by the Sentencing Commission." See

United States v. Conelly, 451 F.3d 942, 945 (8th Cir. 2006); see also 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(d). We review the district court's imposition of special conditions of

supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Cooper, 171 F.3d 582,

585 (8th Cir. 1999).

Mr. Smart argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing

conditions of supervised release having to do with sexual offenses because they are

not "reasonably related" to the considerations in § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and

(a)(2)(D). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1); United States v. Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050,

1056 (8th Cir. 2006). In other words, Mr. Smart contends that the special conditions

have no reasonable relationship to "the nature and circumstances" of his offense and

his "history and characteristics," or to the need to deter crime, to protect the public

from any further crimes he may commit, and to provide him with training, medical

care, or other correctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(d)(1).

The special conditions of supervised release to which Mr. Smart objects include

requirements that he "participate in and follow the rules of sex offender treatment as

directed by the Probation Office," that he "submit to clinical polygraph testing

whenever so directed by the Probation Office," and that he "comply with all sex

offender laws for the state in which" he resides. The conditions also say that "[s]ex

offender assessments and treatment shall be conducted by therapists and polygraph

examiners approved by the Probation Office," and that "[i]f polygraph results reveal

Appellate Case: 06-2410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2006 Entry ID: 3263887
-3-

possible new criminal behavior this will be reported to the appropriate law

enforcement and related agencies after obtaining approval from the Court." 

Mr. Smart argues that our decision in United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 632 (8th

Cir. 2001), requires us to reverse the district court's imposition of conditions of release

in this case. In Scott, id. at 634-36, we held that a district court's imposition of

"special conditions of sex offenders" on a defendant who pleaded guilty to armed bank

robbery was an abuse of discretion. We believe, however, that Scott is distinguishable

from the present case.

The defendant in Scott had previously been convicted of a sexual offense, but

no sex offender-related conditions were imposed on him in connection with his

sentence for that conviction. Nor were such special conditions imposed at his

sentencing for the armed bank robbery. It was not until the second time that the

defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release for the bank robbery crime

– fifteen years after the sexual offense – that the court took into account the previous

sex offender conviction in imposing the special sex offender conditions. Id. at 633-34,

636. The special conditions imposed in Scott were also highly restrictive of the

defendant's liberty. They prohibited him from contacting children under the age of

eighteen, from working where he had "access" to children younger than eighteen, from

"loiter[ing]" within 100 feet of places frequented by children under the age of

eighteen, from possessing "stimulating or sexually oriented material," and from

maintaining a post office box or other private mail box. Id. at 634. We thus held that

"the conditions are not reasonably related to the current offense for which [the

defendant] was sentenced" and that "the special conditions seem unlikely to serve the

goals of deterrence or public safety, since the behavior on which the special conditions

are based, though reprehensible, has ceased." Id. at 636.

Here, Mr. Smart's sexual offenses were much closer in time to the imposition

of special sex offender conditions of supervised release. According to the presentence

Appellate Case: 06-2410 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2006 Entry ID: 3263887
-4-

investigation report (the relevant factual recitations of which the district court adopted

without objection), Mr. Smart was arrested in 1999 for rape and aggravated sodomy

in Decatur, Georgia. As a result of this arrest, Mr. Smart pleaded guilty to an

amended charge of aggravated assault and was required to complete sex offender

treatment. An arrest warrant still remains active for Mr. Smart's violation of his

probation for this crime. The presentence investigation report also notes that Mr.

Smart was referred to juvenile court in 1987 for second degree sexual abuse. We

further observe that Mr. Smart's conditions of supervised release do not restrict his

personal liberty in the same manner as the conditions imposed in Scott.

We do not believe that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the

special conditions relating to sex offenders in the present circumstances. We reject

"conditions of release that were imposed without any evidence of their need and were

not reasonably related to deterrence, protecting the public, or providing necessary

training or correctional treatment." United States v. Camp, 410 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th

Cir. 2005). We have, however, upheld special conditions of supervised release not

directly related to the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced where the

special conditions are related to another offense that the defendant previously

committed. See, e.g., id. at 1046. Given that Mr. Smart's criminal history includes

two sexual abuse offenses, that he was still on probation for the latest sexual abuse

offense at the time that he committed the present offense, and that he still has an

outstanding warrant for a probation violation on the latest sexual abuse offense, we

conclude that the district court's imposition of special conditions of supervised release

related to sex offenders was reasonably related to Mr. Smart's history and

characteristics and the need to protect the public from further crimes.

Appellate Case: 06-2410 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/29/2006 Entry ID: 3263887
-5-

II.

Mr. Smart also argues that the district court improperly delegated authority to

the probation office to determine the manner of imposing his special conditions of

supervised release. Mr. Smart specifically refers to the court's statement during

sentencing, that "obviously these conditions are imposed so that probation is

authorized to do these things, but probation may find it unnecessary to do some of

these things, depending upon what the circumstances are at that time. And it is left

to their discretion to do that."

The authority of probation officers, though broad, is limited by their status as

non-judicial officers. So long as the sentencing judge retains ultimate responsibility,

though, he or she may delegate limited authority to non-judicial officers. United

States v. Kent, 209 F.3d 1073, 1078-79 (8th Cir. 2000); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3603.

In Kent, we held that the sentencing court improperly delegated authority over

the terms of the defendant's supervised release to the probation officer. In that case

the sentencing court said that the probation officer would decide whether the

defendant would have to attend psychiatric counseling during supervised release.

Upon being asked whether the defendant could file a motion to reconsider if he

disagreed with the probation officer's decision, the sentencing court responded that it

"hoped it would not be 'riding herd' in the probation officer's decision to require [the

defendant] to undergo psychiatric treatment." Because this response could be

interpreted as giving the probation officer final authority over a condition of

supervised release, we held that the court had improperly delegated its authority. Id.

We have, however, upheld a district court's delegation of authority where the court

gave no indication that it "would not retain ultimate authority over all of the

conditions of [the defendant's] supervised release." Mickelson, 433 F.3d at 1057;

Conelly, 451 F.3d at 945.

Appellate Case: 06-2410 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/29/2006 Entry ID: 3263887
-6-

The district court here recognized that "it will be some time, of course, before

Mr. Smart will actually be dealing with the nature of these conditions," indicating only

its acknowledgment that certain of its special conditions may not be necessary at the

time of Mr. Smart's release from prison fifteen years after the conditions were

imposed. We detect no error because the district court's statements do not signal an

abdication of ultimate authority over Mr. Smart's conditions of supervised release.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the sentence of the district court.

_________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2410 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/29/2006 Entry ID: 3263887