Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03784/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03784-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Talon Colt Wildwood
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3784

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Talon Colt Wildwood, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2006

Filed: March 3, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Talon Colt Wildwood was convicted of sexual contact with a juvenile in 1994

and was sentenced to 120 months in prison. As part of Wildwood’s supervised

release, he was required to participate in a sex offender program. At group sessions,

Wildwood stated he was having fantasies about sexually assaulting women, including

a young girl who lived near him. Wildwood also admitted to using pornography,

which violated the treatment program’s rules. A staff member found a picture of a

naked female in Wildwood’s wallet, with the young girl’s head affixed to the

photograph. After Wildwood told his supervising probation officer that he had used

the photograph for sexual purposes, Wildwood was terminated from the sex offender

Appellate Case: 05-3784 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2006 Entry ID: 2016383
*

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

program, and his probation officer started release revocation proceedings. A

summons was issued on October 5, and on October 7, the district court*

 conducted a

hearing, revoked Wildwood’s supervised release, and imposed a sentence of two

years in prison. 

On appeal, Wildwood argues the court’s quick action denied him due process.

According to Wildwood, the court should have granted his request for a short

continuance because he wanted to call a witness, the author of the report terminating

him from the treatment program, to challenge the policy behind the termination.

Although the district court acted quickly and denied counsel a continuance,

there is no due process violation here. A defendant’s due process rights with respect

to a supervised release revocation hearing are limited to “evaluation of any contested

relevant facts and consideration of whether the facts as determined warrant

revocation.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972). The defendant must

be given an opportunity to be heard and to show he did not violate the conditions or

that if he did, mitigating circumstances suggest the violation does not warrant

revocation. Id. 

Here, there is no question that Wildwood violated the condition of supervised

release requiring him to complete the treatment program. Wildwood does not argue

he was terminated from the treatment program based on facts that were not true, and

does not contend he was deprived of a chance to present evidence or to question any

witness regarding whether or not he had been terminated from the program. At the

hearing, Wildwood’s probation officer testified Wildwood admitted he possessed the

picture and fantasized about rape, and one of the reasons for his termination from the

treatment program was his possession of the picture. Wildwood does not contend his

Appellate Case: 05-3784 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2006 Entry ID: 2016383
-3-

witness would contradict this testimony. The record shows the evidence about

Wildwood’s termination from the program was reliable and the proposed witness’s

testimony had little value. See United States v. Redd, 318 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir.

2003). Because Wildwood does not dispute he was terminated from the sex offender

program that was a requirement of his supervised release, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in finding Wildwood violated the conditions of his release. 

Further, given the evidence in the record that imprisonment was necessary to protect

the public from Wildwood, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking

Wildwood’s supervised release and in imposing a sentence. 

We thus affirm the district court. Wildwood's pro se motion to dismiss the

appeal is denied.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 05-3784 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2006 Entry ID: 2016383