Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02513/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02513-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry R. Poe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-2513

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Jerry R. Poe,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Western District of Missouri.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: November 16, 2006

 Filed: April 6, 2007

________________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

Jerry R. Poe appeals the two-year sentence imposed upon him after the district

court revoked his supervised release. He contends that the district court improperly

changed the terms of his supervised release because the waiver form he signed was

invalid. After careful review, we remand the case to the district court for further

proceedings.

Appellate Case: 06-2513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2007 Entry ID: 3296244
-2-

I.

Jerry Poe was convicted by a jury on two counts of mailing a threatening

communication. On March 12, 1996, the district court sentenced him to 60 months

of imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to be served both consecutively to

each other and to a state sentence Poe had previously received. Poe was also

sentenced to three years of supervised release. 

Poe's period of incarceration was scheduled to end on February 27, 2006, at

which time he would begin serving his three-year period of supervised release.

Sometime prior to the end of November 2005, the United States Probation Office

determined that Poe should be placed into a community corrections center upon his

release from prison as part of his supervised release, and it decided that Alpha House

in Springfield, Missouri, would be a proper placement. On November 29, 2005, Poe

was approached by his prison case manager. The case manager presented Poe with

a form that waived Poe's right to a hearing and to the assistance of counsel regarding

this proposed change in his supervised release terms–the change requiring that Poe

live in Alpha House for up to six months after his release from prison. It is undisputed

that, at this time, Poe signed and dated the waiver form, agreeing to the change in the

terms of his supervised release and agreeing to be assigned to Alpha House. See Fed.

R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(2)(A).

Relying on the original waiver, the district court entered an order confirming

the changes to the terms of Poe's supervised release on December 28, 2005. In early

February 2006, Poe was given documents listing the rules and regulations of Alpha

House. A probation officer informed Poe that he needed to sign these documents to

acknowledge that he had read the rules and would abide by them. Poe refused to sign

the documents.

Appellate Case: 06-2513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2007 Entry ID: 3296244
-3-

Poe was released from prison on February 27, 2006, and at that time a probation

officer again directed Poe to sign the documents stating he would abide by the rules,

as the documents needed to be signed before Poe could enter Alpha House. Poe again

refused and was immediately taken into custody for violating the terms of his

supervised release for refusing the probation officer's order to sign the documents.

 A preliminary hearing was held before a magistrate judge to determine if Poe's

supervised release should be revoked. At this hearing, Poe acknowledged that he

signed the waiver form, agreeing to the change in his supervised release terms, but

claimed that he only did so because he was told that if he did not sign the waiver form

he would not be released from prison. Poe further testified that while he was willing

to enter a halfway house (but not a community corrections center) at the time he

signed the waiver, after he read the rules and regulations of Alpha House he changed

his mind because he had been misled as to how restrictive of his liberty the placement

would be, and he believed that a number of Alpha House's rules were unconstitutional.

In addition, Poe stated that he was led to believe that Alpha House was a less

restrictive halfway house, not a community corrections center. He claims he

attempted twice to be placed into a community corrections center, such as Alpha

House, in the months prior to his release from prison, but that he was turned down

each time by the Bureau of Prisons. 

At the final revocation hearing, Poe told the district court that he had not

refused to go to Alpha House, but only refused to sign the "business contract" because

it was unconstitutional. Poe again argued that his waiver of a hearing regarding the

change in his supervised release terms was invalid because it was not made

knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. The district court found that Poe had violated

the terms of his supervised release when he refused the probation officer's order to

sign the rules agreement with Alpha House and it revoked Poe's supervised release,

sentencing him to two consecutive terms of twelve months of imprisonment. The

district court did not address Poe's contention that the waiver was invalid. Poe

Appellate Case: 06-2513 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2007 Entry ID: 3296244
-4-

appeals, claiming that the district court violated his due process rights by modifying

the terms of his supervised release without a valid waiver, and therefore the district

court improperly revoked his supervised release for violating the added condition. 

II.

Poe's argument hinges on whether or not the waiver form he signed accepting

the change in his supervised release and agreeing to be assigned to Alpha House was

a valid waiver. "Whether a valid waiver of rights occurred is a question of law that

we review de novo." United States v. Young, 223 F.3d 905, 909 (8th Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001). Factual findings made by the district court are

reviewed for clear error. United States v. Veltman, 9 F.3d 718, 721 (8th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1044 (1994). 

In the preliminary revocation hearing before the magistrate, Poe attacked the

validity of the waiver. However, the magistrate judge stated that the preliminary

revocation hearing was not the proper forum for that issue, and the district court

would have to take it up for resolution. Poe again raised the issue of an invalid waiver

before the district court at the final revocation hearing. The district court adopted the

transcript of the proceedings of the preliminary hearing before the magistrate, and

Poe's arguments were fully included in the record. Neither the magistrate judge nor

the district court made any findings regarding the validity of the waiver signed by Poe.

We have no fact-findings to review regarding the circumstances surrounding Poe's

execution of the waiver form, and the district court's rather summary disposition of

the case does not indicate whether it even considered the arguments raised by Poe

throughout the proceedings. Thus, we believe that this matter needs to be taken up by

the district court in the first instance to determine if the waiver form signed by Poe

regarding changes to the terms of his supervised release was valid. See United States

v. Horn, 76 F. App'x 747, 749 (8th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (per curiam) (remanding

case to the district court for initial determination of whether appellant's waiver to

Appellate Case: 06-2513 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2007 Entry ID: 3296244
-5-

changes in terms of his supervised release was valid, after appellant raised the issue

before the district court but it was not addressed); see also United States v. Thomas,

536 F.2d 1253, 1254 (8th Cir. 1976) (determining that remand was necessary to

determine if there was a valid waiver of the defendant's right to counsel at a lineup).

We note in passing that the district court, instead of relying on the disputed

executed waiver to effect a change in Poe's supervised release conditions, could have

noticed a hearing with Poe and his counsel then present, to determine whether or not

Poe's supervised release conditions should be modified to include his placement in

Alpha House. Such an alternative may still be available upon remand. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583; Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b), (c). 

III.

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings

not inconsistent with this opinion.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 06-2513 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/06/2007 Entry ID: 3296244