United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2981

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Darrell George Taylor

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: March 14, 2014

Filed: March 20, 2014

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. 

Darrell Taylor appeals the sentence imposed by the district court on the

1

revocation of his second period of supervised release. Although his attorney

conceded his violations ofthe conditions ofsupervised release in his presence, Taylor

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri. 
argues that the district court committed plain error by not asking him personally

whether he conceded the violations. Taylor also appeals the substantive

reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. 

I.

Taylor pled guilty in 2007 to possession with the intent to distribute more than

five grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On January 17,

2008 the district court sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment and four years of

supervised release. His first term of supervised release began on May 13, 2011. In

the following year he was arrested for use of a controlled substance and failure to

maintain contact with his probation officer. At both his preliminary and final

revocation proceedings, Taylor waived his right to a full hearing and admitted the

charged violations. He wassentenced to 6 months of imprisonment and an additional

18 months of supervised release.

Taylor began his second term of supervised release on May 29, 2013. Two

days later on June 1, St. Louis police responded to an alleged assault on his girlfriend. 

As subsequently alleged in the petition to revoke his supervised release, Taylor had

punched his girlfriend in the face while riding in a car, pulled her by the hair and

slammed her face into the dashboard. When they were unable to locate Taylor, the

St. Louis police contacted the Creve Coeur department. Officers from that

department went to Taylor's residence where they saw that his girlfriend had injuries

on her face and blood stains on her clothing. She later told police that Taylor had

repeatedly punched her in the face, driven her head onto the floor, and kicked her in

the head. Taylor refused repeated orders by the police to stand up when they arrested

him and the officers had to lift him into a standing position. Taylor was then charged

by the City of Creve Coeur with domestic assault and resisting arrest. 

-2-
On July 26, 2013 the federal district court issued a warrant for Taylor's arrest

which was executed on August 5. Taylor was charged with multiple violations of his

supervised release including a delinquentmonthly supervision report, failure to notify

his probation officer within 72 hours of his arrest on June 1, and failure to attend

required substance abuse testing in June and July. Taylor pled not guilty at his

preliminary revocation hearing before a magistrate judge on August 7. His probation

officer testified in support of the petition to revoke, and the magistrate judge set a

final revocation hearing before the district court on August 22. 

At the final revocation hearing the district court summarized the violation

allegations, and Taylor's attorney informed the court that his client admitted all the

charged violations other than domestic assault. Neither the government nor the

defense offered any evidence. The court invited Taylor to speak and informed him

that he wasfree "to address any of the issues about" the four charged violations of his

release conditions. The court stated that these were the only charges before it and

ready for consideration. It warned Taylor that he "should say nothing about the

allegations concerning assault." Taylor then addressed the court and requested that

he have a chance to move forward with his life. He also stated that he had been

attending his court ordered anger management classes and was "open and willing to

attend any more classes" the court might view as helpful. 

Taylor's guideline range was calculated at 5 to 11 months, and the district court

sentenced himto 10 months imprisonment to be followed by 13 months ofsupervised

release. The court also ordered domestic violence counseling and continued anger

management treatment. Taylor now appeals and argues that the district court

committed plain error by not asking him directly whether he admitted the violations

of his release. He also appeals his 10 month sentence as substantively unreasonable. 

-3-
II.

Before a supervised release may be revoked, a defendant has a right to a

revocation hearing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b). This right may be waived, but to be

effective a waiver must be knowingly and voluntarily made. United States v. CorreaTorres, 326 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 2003). Taylor contends that the district court erred

by revoking his supervised release without his direct admission to the charged

violations of the conditions of release. Since Taylor failed to raise such an objection

before the district court, our review is for plain error. United States v. Taylor, 679

F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 2012). Taylor must therefore show that the district court

committed an error that was plain and that affected his substantial rights. Id. We may

only exercise our discretion to correct a plain error if the error "seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. (quotation

omitted.) 

 

The requirementsfor acceptance of guilty pleas under FederalRule ofCriminal

Procedure Rule 11 do not apply at revocation hearings. See United States v. Rapert,

813 F.2d 182 (8th Cir. 1987). Accepting a guilty plea requires an affirmative

showing that the plea is intelligent and voluntary. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238,

242 (1969). We concluded in Rapert that "admitting to probation violations at a

revocation hearing is not the equivalent of pleading guilty to a crime" and therefore

Rule 11 and the requirements in Boykin do not apply. 813 F.2d at 185. 

Other circuit courts have also declined to require an affirming colloquy at

revocation hearings like the one Taylor seeks here. In United States v. TapiaEscalera, 356 F.3d 181, 184 (1st Cir. 2004), the defendant was told of his procedural

rights at a preliminary hearing and defense counsel admitted to the charges in the

defendant's presence, and the defendant failed to object to the admissions. Id. As in

the case now before our court, the defendant had also been through a prior revocation

hearing and was familiar with his procedural rights. Id. In light of these

-4-
circumstances the First Circuit concluded that the defendant's waiver was knowing

and voluntary. Id. The Fourth Circuit has also concluded that a waiver is knowing

and voluntary when a defendant's counsel has admitted to violations in the

defendant's presence and the defendant asks for leniency, but fails to object to the

attorney's admissions. United States v. Farrell, 393 F.3d 498, 500 (4th Cir. 2004). 

Although Taylor concedes that the factors which led the First Circuit to

conclude that a waiver was knowing and voluntary in Tapia-Escalera are also present

here, he argues that a personal colloquy was required to ensure not only that his

waiver was knowing and voluntary, but also that it had been made with the effective

assistance of counsel. Taylor contends that a more pointed colloquy would have

informed the district court that his attorney had misled him, but at this stage he does

not raise an ineffective assistance claim. Such claims normally involve facts outside

the record and are thus "more appropriately raised in collateral proceedings." United

States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767 771 (8th Cir. 1995). 

While it would have "simplified matters" if the district court had directly asked

Taylor if he admitted the violations, Tapia-Escalera, 356 F.3d at 184, the court did

afford Taylor an opportunity to speak after his attorney had conceded them and asked

if Taylor wanted "to address any of the issues about" the four violations of his release

conditions. Taylor sought leniency instead and voiced no objection to his counsel's

admissions. On this record we conclude that the district court did not err in revoking

Taylor's supervised release. 

Taylor also contendsthat the district court'simposition of a 10 month sentence

was substantively unreasonable. While Taylor acknowledges that the district court

explicitly stated the assault allegations were not before it and that it could not

consider those allegations, he claims that the court gave improper weight to them

because it imposed release conditions related to domestic violence and anger

management counseling.

-5-
We review the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence under a

deferential abuse of discretion standard, and we may apply a presumption of

reasonableness to sentences within the guideline range. United States v. Feemster,

572 F.3d 455, 460–61 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Taylor's guideline range was 5 to

11 months, and we therefore may presume his 10 month sentence was substantively

reasonable. See id. Prior to his sentencing, Taylor informed the court that he had

been attending his anger management classes and was willing to attend other courses

that the court viewed as helpful. Taylor's girlfriend had stated in an earlier

presentence investigation report that he had assaulted her and had been arrested by

St. Louis police. Such facts relate to the history and characteristics of a defendant

and are therefore proper factors for the district court to consider in imposing a

sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing a reasonable sentence for Taylor's violation. 

For these reasons we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-6-