# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 31 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ju li an Mi tc he ll

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 31 48

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ju li an Mi tc he ll

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Ju ne 5, 2 01 5 Fi le d: Ju ne 8, 2 01 5 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

In th es e c o n s ol id at ed m at te rs , Ju li an Mi tc he ll –p ro ceed in g pr o se –d ire ct ly

ap pe al s fo ll o w in g im

po si ti on of se nt en ce by th e di st ric t co ur t up on hi s gu il ty pl ea 1

to a fel on -in -p os se ss io n ch arg e an d th e rev oc at io n of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e in a pr io r cri m in al m at te r. W e aff

irm.

W hi le Mi tc he ll was se rv in g a 5- y ear t e r m o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e, au th or it ie s fo un d a fir earm in hi s res id en ce, an d he was ch arg ed wit h be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Mi tc he ll ’s su pe rv is in g pr ob at io n of fic er th erea fte r ob ta in ed a vi ol at or ’s

warra nt ag ai ns t Mi tc he ll fo r vi ol at in g hi s su pe rv i se d rel eas e co nd it io ns

. The ne w

c r i mi n a l m at te r an d th e su pe rv is ed rel eas e pr oc eed in gs were co m bi ne d fo r di sp os it io n.

Mi tc h e l l mo ve d to su pp res s th e fir earm fo un d du rin g th e se arch of hi s

res id en ce. Fo ll owi ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t a d o p te d (wit ho ut ob jecti on ) th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on to de ny th e m ot io n. 2
Mi tc he ll th erea fte r pl ead ed gu il ty t o t h e fel on -in -p os se ss io n ch arg e, res erv in g hi s

The Hon or ab le Bri an C. W im es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt E. La r s e n, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 2 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-rig ht to ap pe al th e de ni al of hi s su pp res si on m ot io n. At a co m bi ne d sen te nc in g and

rev oc at io n he ari ng , Mi tc he ll ad m it te d vi ol at in g sev eral of hi s rele as e co nd it io ns , as ch arg ed in th e vi ol at io n rep or t, an d su pe rv is ed rel eas e was rev ok ed

. Fo l l o win g
arg um en t by bo th si de s an d Mi tc he ll ’s op po rtu ni ty fo r al lo c ut io n, th e di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced Mi tc he ll to se rv e 46 m on th s in pr is on an d th ree y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e

on th e fel on -in -p os se ss io n c ha rg e, an d t o s erv e 30 m on th s in pr is on as a rev oc at io n

se nt en ce o n t he pri or cri m in al m at te r, wit h t he sen te nc es to run co ns ecu ti ve ly.

On ap pe al Mi tc he ll arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s

su pp res si on m ot io n, be cau se (1 ) th e se arch was co nd uc te d ba se d on co ns en t gi ve n by hi s m ot he r, who was m en ta ll y in co m pe te nt to gi ve co ns en t, an d (2 ) he di d no t co ns en t
to th e se arch

. The se arg um en ts fai l. See Uni te d St at es v. Si gi ll it o, 75 9 F.3 d 91 3, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w); Uni te d St at es v. Newto n, 25 9 F.3 d 96 4, 96 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (fai lu re to ob

ject to m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep or t). W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t

co ur t th at th e se arch in g of fic ers reas on ab ly rel ie d on th e co ns en t gi ve n by Mi tc he ll ’s

m ot he r: sh e op en ed th e do or to th e res id en ce, in di cat ed th at sh e li ve d th ere wit h he r

so n, and de m on st rat ed fam il ia rit y wit h th e pr em is es

. W e se e no th in g in th es e fact s,

or th e te st im on y de ve lo pe d at th e su pp res si on he ari ng , th at wou ld ha ve su gg es te d to th e of fic ers t h a t th e m ot he r la ck ed m en ta l cap aci ty to co ns en t to a se arch of th e
pr em is es

. See Uni te d St at es v. Lin ds ey , 70 2 F.3 d 10 92
, 1 0 9 6

- 97 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (d is cu ss in g o ffi cer’s re as on ab le rel ia nc e o n th ird pa rty’ s dem on st rat io n of ap pa ren t

au th or it y to co ns en t to se arch of pr em is es ). As to Mi tc he ll ’s r e f us al to gi ve hi s

co ns en t, we no te th at he di d no t ob ject to th e se arch in hi s m ot he r’s pr es en ce. In de ed
, h e was at po li ce he ad qu art ers at th e ti m e an d ha d ag reed to th in k ab ou t whe th e r h e

wou ld co ns en t to th e se arch

. Cf. Fern an de z v. Cal ifo rn ia
, 13 4 S. Ct

. 11 26
, 11 29 -3 0,
11 32 -3 7 (2 01 4) (d is cu ss in g na rro w e x c e p ti on th at fin ds th ird -p art y co ns en t in su ffi ci en t wh en an ot he r oc cu pa nt is pre se nt an d o bjec ts to sea rch ).

Mi tc he ll al so c o n t e s t s h is rev oc at io n se nt en ce, arg ui ng fo r th e fir st ti m e on
ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t wro ng ly in fla te d hi s rev oc at io n ran ge , fai le d to an no un ce

-3

-w h a t t h e r an ge was , an d fai le d to ex pl ai n it s va ria nc e fro m th e ran ge

. W e fin d n o

ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard ); Uni te d St at es v. Bran do n, 52 1
F.3 d 10 19
, 10 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (u no bjec t e d

- t o pr oc ed ur al erro rs are rev ie wed fo r pl ai n erro r). The pr ob at io n o ffi cer’s su pe rv is ed -rel eas e-v io la ti on pa ck et –i nc lu di ng

a li st of vi ol at io ns , as well as a wor ks he et refl ect in g th e “ gr ad e ” as si gn ed to each vi ol at io n an d th e res ul ti ng Gui de li ne s rev oc at io n ran ge –wa s be fo re th e co ur t an d th e
p a r t i e s an d was refe rred to at ti m es

. Mi tc he ll st ip ul at ed th at he ha d vi ol at e d a

su pe rv is ed co nd it io n (am on g ot he rs ) pr oh ib it in g hi s co m m is si on of an ot he r cri m e– whi ch th e wor ks he et no te d was a Grad e A vi ol at io n y ie ld in g a ran ge of 24 -3 0

m on th s in pr is on b a s e d o n h i s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y

. W e fin d no ba si s to

co nc lu de th at erro r (p la in or o t h e r w i s e) oc cu rred in cal cu la ti ng or st at in g th e

rev oc at io n ran ge

. See Uni te d St at es v. W hi rlwi nd So ld ie r, 49 9 F.3 d 86 2, 87 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). W e al so fin d th at th e 30 -m on th se nt en ce, fall in g at the to p of th e ran ge ,
was su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. See Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1. Fi na ll y , we co nc lu de th at th e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s th at Mi tc he ll ha s rai se d are no t pr op erl y be fo re

us in th is di rect cri m in al ap pe al

. See Uni te d St at es v. McAd or y , 50 1 F.3 d 86 8,
87 2- 73 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-