Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03253/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaun Deangelo Porchia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3253

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, * Appeal From the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Shaun Deangelo Porchia, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2006

Filed: March 28, 2006

___________

Before COLLOTON, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shaun Deangelo Porchia appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed

following a revocation hearing on violations of his supervised release. He argues that

the district court abused its discretion by allowing a probation officer to testify that

Porchia had used marijuana, rather than require a lab technician to testify as to

positive lab test results. He further contends that his sentence is unreasonably long.

We affirm.

Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to revocation

proceedings, “probationers and parolees enjoy due process and statutory protections

Appellate Case: 05-3253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2006 Entry ID: 2026035
-2-

in the context of their revocation hearings.” United States v. Redd, 318 F.3d 778, 783

(8th Cir. 2003) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488-89 (1972)). In United

States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640, 642-43 (8th Cir. 1986), this court set forth the balancing

test that district courts are to employ when determining the admissibility of hearsay

testimony offered by the government in revocation hearings. The court is to balance

the probationer’s right of confrontation against the government’s reasons for

proffering the hearsay. Id. at 642. Factors which aid in this analysis are the

government’s stated reason for not having the witness testify in person, and whether

the evidence is of a type generally reliable. Id. at 643. Although the district court is

generally required to perform a Bell balancing test in the first instance, we may also

perform that task where the record is sufficient to allow our informed analysis.

United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d 840, 844 (8th Cir. 2004).

Having reviewed the record in this case, we find no error in the admission of

the complained-of hearsay statement. A probation officer familiar with Porchia’s

circumstances testified that Porchia had tested positive on a number of occasions for

the presence of marijuana on a “sweat patch” that he was required to wear. Porchia

complains that he was entitled to confront and cross-examine someone affiliated with

the private laboratory located in Texas that performed the test. Given the reliability

of drug-test evidence, however, we find that the questionable value in requiring such

testimony is outweighed by the burden to the government in producing such a

witness. Accord Redd, 318 F.3d at 784.

Porchia also argues that the 24-month sentence imposed was unreasonable,

directing us to the fact that the guidelines suggested a range of six to twelve months.

See USSG § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (revocation table). We determine whether a revocation

sentence was reasonable in light of the factors referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e),

United States v. Cotton, 399 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2005), and review a district

court’s decision to impose a sentence longer than suggested by the revocation table

for an abuse of discretion, United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 05-3253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2006 Entry ID: 2026035
-3-

2004). We find no error here; Porchia had been before the court at least twice before

on revocation hearings, and as recently as two months before the instant offenses had

been allowed to continue on supervised release despite similar violations. Moreover,

Porchia’s initial sentence of five years of probation reflected a downward departure,

and Porchia had been thoroughly and continually forewarned by the court that it

would not take Porchia’s violations lightly. We cannot fault the district court for

following through on its pledge.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2006 Entry ID: 2026035