# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 25 95

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Man di ng o S im m s

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F t. Sm it h

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 14
Fil ed : J un e 1 0, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d B YE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Man di ng o Si m

m s ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s re voc at ion of supe rv is ed rel eas e. 1

He arg ue s th at th e co ur t vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht to co nf ro nt wit ne ss es whe n it

ad m it te d he ars ay ev id en ce at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng wit ho ut en ga gi ng in th e an al y si s

The Hon or ab le Ro be r t T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.r e q u i red by Uni te d St at es v. Bel l, 78 5 F.2 d 64 0, 64 2- 43 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ), an d la t e r

de ci si on s. See al so Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 32 .1(b )(2 )(C)

. W e rev ie w th is c o n s t i t u t i o na l

cl ai m de no vo

. See Uni te d St at es v. Farm er, 56 7 F.3 d 3 4 3

, 3 4 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

Co nc lu di ng th e Bel l is su e was no t pr op erl y pr es erv ed in th e di st ric t co ur t, we affi rm

.

I.

S im m s be ga n a fiv e-year te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e in Sep te m be r 20 0 9 a f

t e r

se rv in g a pr is on se nt en ce fo r co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se

. In Octo be r 20 10

, he was co nv ic te d of m is de m ean or th ird de gr ee do m es ti c ba tt ery in an Ark an sa s st at e

c o u r t

. Ju ris di ct io n ov er hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e was th en tra ns ferr ed to th e W es t e r n
Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. On Aug us t 2 2, 20 12

, Si m m s’s es tra ng ed wife

, Nik ki Si m m s,

co m pl ai ne d to Van Bu ren , Ark an sa s p o l i c e th at Si m m s ha d ba tt ered

, se xu al ly

as sa ul te d, an d th reat en ed to ki ll he r fo r m an y ho ur s th e pr io r ni gh t. Nik ki Si m m s was
refe rred to th e W om en ’s Cri si s In te rv en ti on Cen te r in Fo rt Sm it h, whe re he r ph y si cal

in juri es were id en ti fie d. The ne xt da y , sh e ap pl ie d fo r an ex pa rte Ord er of Pro te ct io n

ag ai ns t Si m

m s, whi c h th e Crawf

or d Co un ty Ci rcu it Co ur t is su ed aft er a Sep te m be r

19 he ari ng . Crim in al ch arg es were fi le d i n s ta te co ur t o n S ep te m be r 10

.

Bas ed on th is in ci de nt

, U.S. Pro ba t i o n Offi cer Bren t You ng pe ti ti on ed th e
di st ric t co ur t fo r rev oc at io n of Si m m s’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e, ch arg in g hi m wit h

vi ol at in g th e co nd it io n th at he no t co m m it an ot he r cri m e. The P et it io n a ll eg ed th at

Van Bu ren po li ce ha d ch arg ed Si m m s “ wit h a g g r a v at ed as sa ul t of a fam il y or
ho us eh ol d m em

be r, te rro ris ti c th reat en in g, do m es ti c ba tt ery 3r d de gr ee, an d cri m in al

m is ch ie f 1s t de gr ee.” The Pet it i o n g a v e a de ta il ed su m m ary of th e in ci de nt as

rep or te d by Nik ki in th e po li ce “ in ci de nt rep or t.” The Pet it io n al so “ no te d” th e 20 10

st at e co ur t co nv ic ti on , fo r whi ch no act io n ha d be en req ue s t e d “due to th e
ci rcu m st an ces of t he ch arg e.”

-2

-The co ur t he ld a rev oc at io n he ar i n g on Ju ly 11

, 20 13

. The go ve rn m en t’s

ev id en ce co ns is te d of te st im on y by Pro ba ti on Offi cer You ng an d Van Bu ren

Dete ct iv e Ran da ll All en ; th e Tran sc rip t of Ju dg m en t fo r Si m m s’s 20 10 co nv ic ti on ;

po li ce in ci de nt rep or ts rel at i n g to th e 20 10 an d 20 12 in ci de nt s; ph ot os of Ms

. S i m m s’s in juri es ; ph ot os of th e br ok en be d fram e whe re Nik ki al le ge d S i mm s
fo rcef ul ly t hr ew he r du rin g th e s e x u a l a s s au lt ; ph ot os of te xt m es sa ge s Si m m s se nt

to Nik ki on Aug us t 23

, 20 12

, ad m it ti ng th at he m ad e “ a bi g m is ta ke ” an d as ki ng he r

to fo rg iv e hi m ; an d Ark an sa s St at e Cri m e Lab rep or ts th at Si m m s’s DNA was pr es en t

in m at eri al co ll ect ed d u rin g a se xu al as sa ul t ex am of Nik ki Si m m s sh or tl y aft er th e

in ci de nt

. Dur in g cro ss ex am in at io n of Detect iv e All en , de fen se co un se l in tro du ced

th e ex pa rte Orde r of Pro te ct io n and an Aug us t 22 Cri si s In te rv en ti on Cen te r rep or t

th at in cl ud ed a le ng th y

ha nd -wri tt en na rrat iv e o f th e in ci de nt by N ik ki Sim m s.

Des pi te th e o bv io us is su es rai se d by t hi s arra y of ev id en ce, on ly one he ars ay

or co nf ro nt at io n ob

jecti on was m ad e at th e he ari ng

. Afte r th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ced

th e 2 01 0 J ud gm en t wi th ou t o bjec ti on , Pro ba ti on Offic er Yo un g was ask ed :

Q. . . . W ha t ac tu al ly hap pe ne d?

A. Acco rd in g to th e po li ce rep or t or th e in ci de nt rep or t, th ere was

an al te rcat io n bet ween Mr. Sim m s and Bren da McC ul lo ug h, and th e

--

[Defe ns e Co un se l]: Yo u r ho no r

. . . I’m go in g to ob ject. It
vi ol at es th e co nf

ro nt at io n cl au se fo r th e pr ob at io n of fic er to read in th e

r e p o r t

. I th in k th at he can te st ify ab ou t th e ou tc om e, bu t as far as th e read in g in th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces , I th in k [Si m m s] ha s an ab so lu te rig ht to co nf

ro nt th e wit ne ss

.

THE COURT: W el l, th is is a su pe rv is ed rel eas e is su e.

. . . Th e

ru le s are a li tt le di ffer en t.

. . . I’m go in g to ov erru le y ou r ob jecti on wit h

a co nt in ui ng ob

jecti on an d ex cep ti on to it

, bu t I wou ld po in t ou t, to o, to th e g ov ern m en t an d t he wit ne ss , th at I can read

. . . .

-3

-Offi cer You ng th en br ie fly su m m ari zed th e 20 10 in ci de nt an d th en de sc rib ed th e Aug us t 20 12 in ci de nt gi vi ng ris e to th e pe ti ti on to rev ok e su pe rv is ed rel eas e. At th e

en d o f di rect ex am in at io n, t he co ur t as ke d Off ic er Yo un g:

THE COURT: W as th ere a rep or t is su ed in co nn ect i o n wit h th e Aug us t 2 01 2 i nc id en t?

A. Yes, si r. Ther e was a po li ce re po rt.

THE COURT: And do y ou ha ve it ?

A. I do . Yes, s ir.

THE COURT: Any o bjec ti on to m ak in g th at

. . . Gov ern m en t’s
Exh ib it No. 2 in th is m at te r?

[Defe ns e C o u n s e l ]: You r Hon or , th e of fic er is he re. If

. . . th e Co ur t’s in cl in ed to co nd it io na ll y ad m it th at ba se d on t h e o f f i cer’s

te st im on y

. . . .

THE COURT: I’m go in g to ad m it it

. If he’s he re, he can affi rm it , bu t i t wi ll be ad m it te d wi th th at un de rs ta nd in g. . . .

Dete ct iv e All en , an au th or of th e 20 12 in ci de nt rep or t, th en te st ifi ed

. All en reco un te d

at le ng th

, wit ho ut ob

jecti on , wha t Nik ki Si m

m s tol d hi m im m ed ia te ly aft er th e Aug us t

20 12 in ci de nt

, as well as hi s in ve st ig at iv e co nv ers at io ns wit h Si m m s an d hi s pe rs on al

obse rv at ion s dur ing the inv es tigat io n. Defen se co un se l’s ex te ns iv e cro ss ex am ina tio n
fo cu se d pr im ari ly o n th e qu es ti on whe th er th e se xu al co nt act by Si m m s du rin g th is

vi ol en t en co un te r wit h hi s wife was co ns en su al

. To th at en d, co un se l in tro du ced th e
Cri si s Cen t e r R ep or t, whi ch in cl ud ed m ed ic al ev id en ce co ns is te nt wit h co ns en su al

se x an d al so Nik ki Si m

m s’s le ng th y , ha nd writ te n na rrat iv e of th e in ci de nt

, whi ch was

co ns is te nt wit h Dete ct iv e All en ’s t e s t i mo ny of wha t sh e to ld hi m du rin g hi s

in ve st ig at io n.

-4

-Bas ed on th is ev id en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t rev ok ed Si m m s’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e.
The co ur t fo un d th at Si m

m s ha d co m

m it te d a vi ol en t Cl as s A of fen se , whe th er or no t

he rap ed Nik ki Si m

m s. The co ur t calc ul at ed a gu id el in es sen te nc in g ra ng e o f 24 to

30 m on th s in pr is on , se e U.S. S.G. §§ 7B 1.1 (a)( 1)

, 7B 1.4 (a); va rie d up ward ; an d

im po se d th e st at ut or y m ax im um 60 m on th s, co nc ur ren t wit h an y se nt en ce i mpo se d

in th e p en di ng st at e co ur t p ro se cu ti on , wit h n o fu rth er s up erv is ed rel eas e.

II

.

On ap pe al

, Si m

m s arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s con st it ut io na l rig ht to

co nf ro nt ad ve rs e w i t n es se s at a su pe rv is ed rel eas e rev oc at io n he ari ng whe n it

co ns id ered “ po li ce an d ot he r rep o r t s a l o ng wit h te st im on y reg ard in g th e he ars ay

co n te nt s of th os e do cu m en ts .” The “ fu ll pa no pl y of rig ht s du e a de fen da nt in [a

cri m in al pr os ecu ti on ]” d o n o t ap pl y in rev oc at io n pr oc eed in gs , bu t a de fen da nt

co nt es ti ng rev oc at io n is en ti tl ed to “ th e m in im um req ui rem en ts of du e p r o c es s,”

in cl ud in g “ th e rig ht to co nf ro nt an d cro ss -ex am in e ad ve rs e wit ne ss es (u nl es s th e
he ari ng of

fic er sp eci fic al ly fin ds go od cau se f o r n ot al lo win g co nf

ro nt at io n) .”

Mo rri ss ey v. Brewe r, 40 8 U.S. 47 1, 48 0, 48 9 (1 97 2)

. Thu s, a s t h e d i s tri ct co ur t

reco gn iz ed

, “ [t]he st an da rd fo r ad m it ti ng he ars ay in a rev oc at io n he ari ng is di ffer en t

th an at [ a] tria l o n t he m eri ts .” Farm er, 5 67 F.3d at 3 47 (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Bec au se th e ru le s of ev id en ce reg ard in g he ars ay are co m pl ex an d do no t st ric tl y

ap pl y in rev oc at io n pro ceed in gs , Si m m s’s ov erl y -b ro ad co nt en ti on req ui res th at we

se pa rat el y co ns id er each it em of ev id en ce th at rai se s a he ars ay is su e. W e be gi n wit h

th e on ly it em to whi ch sp eci fic ob jecti on was m ad e, th e po li ce rep or t r e l a t i n g to

Si m m s’s 2 01 0 b at te ry

co nv ic ti on . Early in th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , def en se co un se l

ob jecte d th at “ it vi ol at es th e co nf ro nt at io n cl au se fo r th e pa ro le of fic er [Bre nt You ng ]

to read in th e rep or t.” Thi s was an am bi gu ou s ob

jecti on

. As st at ed

, co un se l m erel y
ob jecte d to You ng read in g in to th e reco rd a rep or t th at he di d no t au th or whe n he ha d

no fir st -h an d kn owl ed ge of th e un de rlyin g fact s. Bu t co un se l m ay ha ve in te nd ed to

-5

-al so ob

ject to ad m is si on of a rep or t co nt ai ni ng he ars ay st at em en t s by th e vi ct im of

Si m m s’s 20 10 of

fen se

. The di st in ct io n is cl earl y si gn ifi can t. See Uni te d St at es v.

Jo hn so n, 71 0 F.3 d 78 4, 78 9 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 3 )

, whe re th e rev oc at io n se nt en ce was

va cat ed be cau se th e go ve rn m en t of fere d no ev id en ce o th er t ha n a po li ce rep or t; we
di st in gu is he d ou r affi rm an ce in Farm er, w he re the au th or s of the po li ce repo rt were

su bjec t t o c r o ss ex am in at io n, 56 7 F.3 d at 34 6- 47

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t was to o

qu ic k to ad m it th e 20 10 rep or t wit ho ut ev id en ce of it s rel ia bi li ty. See Bel l, 78 5 F.2 d

at 64 3- 44 ; Un it ed Sta te s v . Llo y d, 5 66 F.3d 34 1, 3 46 (3d Ci r. 20 09 ). Bu t th is erro r

was cl earl y ha rm le ss , bo th be cau se th e ba tter y co nv ic ti on was ad m it te d in to ev id en ce,

an d be cau se th e co ur t st at ed th at it s 60 -m on th se nt en ce was ba se d “ es pe ci al ly” on th e
vi ol en t 2 01 2 i nc id en t.

The ne xt it em of ev id en ce was th e 20 12 po li ce rep o r t

. D u rin g hi s di rect

ex am in at io n, Pro ba ti on Offi cer You ng de sc rib ed th is rep or t as co nt ai ni ng th e fact s
th at pr om pt ed hi m to fil e rev oc at io n ch arg es

. No im pe rm is s i b l e he ars ay in th at

. W he n th e co ur t as ke d if th ere was an y ob jecti on to ad m it ti ng th e rep or t in to ev id en ce,
de fen se co un se l no te d th at it s au th or was pr es en t so th e co ur t c o u l d “co nd it io na ll y
ad m it t h a t b as ed on th e of fic er’s te st im on y .” The co ur t im m ed ia te ly ad m it te d th e

rep or t un co nd it io na ll y , ag ai n pe rh ap s to o qu ic kl y

. Bu t th e co nt en ts of th e rep or t were

qu ic kl y ov ers ha do wed by Dete ct iv e All en ’s di rect te st im on y , ph ot os ev id en ci ng
Si m m s’s v io le nt ass au lt , and th e Cri si s In te rv en ti on Cen te r rep or t.

Tha t bri ng s us to th e cru x of Si m m s’s ap pe al

, All en ’s le ng th y te st im on y as to

wha t Nik ki Si m

m s to ld hi m th e da y aft er th e 20 12 in ci de nt

. Si m m s di d no t ob

ject to

th is te st im on y , whi ch was co ns is te nt wit h N i k k i ’s ha nd -wri tt en na rrat iv e of th e

in ci de nt in th e Cri si s Cen te r rep or t, a do cu m en t of fere d i n t o e v id en ce by Si mms
du rin g cro ss ex am in at io n of D e t e c t i v e A l le n. Thi s is th e type of vi ct im he ars ay at

is s u e i n U n i te d St at es v. Bl ack Bea r, 54 2 F.3 d 24 9, 25 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). It is

ob vi ou sl y hi gh ly rel ev an t to th e rev oc at io n ch arg es an d m ay gr eat ly affe ct th e

rev oc at io n se nt en ce im

po se d if on e or m or e vi ol at io ns are fo un d. Thu s, whe n ti m el y

-6

-ob

jecti on is m ad e, a s i t w a s i n Bel l, se e 78 5 F.2 d at 64 3 n.3 , t he di st ric t co ur t m us t

as se ss “ th e ex pl an at io n th e go ve rn m en t of fers of why co nf

ro nt at io n is un de si rab le or

im pr act ic al ” an d “ th e rel ia bi li ty of th e ev id en ce whi ch th e go ve rn m en t of fers in pl ace
of li ve te st im on y ” be fo r e d e c id in g whe th er “ th e pr ob at io ne r is en ti tl ed to

co n f r o n t at io n.” Id

. at 64 3; se e Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti n, 37 1 F.3 d 44 6, 44 8- 49 (8 th

Ci r.), cert . den ie d, 5 43 U.S. 10 04 (20 04 ).

Si m m s arg ue s th at th e r e v o c a t i on jud gm en t m us t be va cat ed be cau se th e

go ve rn m en t of

fere d no ex pl a na ti on why Nik ki Si m m s was no t pr es en t to gi ve li ve

te st im on y , an d th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co nd uc t th e an al y si s req ui red by Bel l, Bl ack

Bea r, Jo hn so n, an d ot he r cas es

. Bu t de fen se co un se l ne ve r ob jecte d to th e ad m is si on
of Nik ki ’s ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en ts

, un li ke th e de fen da nt in Uni te d St at es v. Reynol ds

, who ob jecte d to ad m is si on of vi ct im s’ ou t-o f-co ur t co m pl ai nt s of se xu al as sa ul t. 49

F.3 d 4 23 , 42 5 (8 th Cir . 19 95 ).

The re are li ke ly ex pl an at io ns fo r Si m m s’s fai lu re to ob

ject. Fi rs t, m an y cas es
ha ve he ld th at th ere is go od cau se fo r no t pr od uc in g a de cl aran t “ whe n a de fen da nt

ha s a hi st or y of vi ol en t co nd uc t th at m ak es rep ris al

. . . a po ss ib il it y .” Uni te d St at es

v. Cart he n, 68 1 F.3 d 94

, 10 1 (2 d Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 13 3 S.

Ct

. 83 7 (2 01 3)

. Here, Nik ki Si m m s to ld po li ce sh e was fri gh te ne d of Si m m s aft er th e

20 12 in ci de nt , and a st at e co ur t p ro m pt ly ent ered a fi ve -y ear p ro te ct iv e or de r at he r

req ue st

. Seco nd

, gi ve n th e su bs ta nt ia l no n- he ars ay ev id en ce th at Si m m s was gu il ty

of a vi ol en t as sa ul t, de fen se co un se l’s em ph as is at th e he ari ng was to av oi d a fin di ng
of no n- co ns en su al se x (wh ic h was av oi de d) ; Nik ki Si m m s, if p r e s e nt

, wou ld

un do ub te dl y te st ify sh e was rap ed du rin g th e 20 12 in ci de nt

, whe reas Si m m s arg ue d

he r ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en ts were un cl ear o n th is is su e, an d th e Cri si s Cen te r rep or t

in cl ud ed m ed ic al ev id en ce co ns is te nt wit h S im m s’s cl ai m of c on se ns ua l s ex

.

In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e go ve rn m en t was no t ob li ga te d to ex p l a i n t h e
ab se nc e of Nik ki Si m

m s un ti l th e is su e was rai se d, an d th e di st ric t co ur t was no t

-7

-ob li ga te d to ap pl y th e Bel l ba la nc in g te st

, su a sp on te
, in th e ab se nc e of a he ars ay or

co nf ro nt at io n ob

jec tio n re qui ri ng th at an al y si s. Mo reo ve r, on th is reco rd

, ha d Si m m s 2

m ad e a ti m el y ob

jecti on to Nik ki ’s ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en ts

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

fai le d to co nd uc t a Bel l an al ys i s , we wou ld pe rfo rm th e an al y si s ou rs el ve s an d

c o n c l ud e th ere was go od cau se no t to pr od uc e he r as a li ve wit ne ss , as we d i d i n

Farm er, 5 67 F.3d at 3 47 -4 8, an d i n Un it ed Sta te s v . Mart in , 38 2 F .3d 84 0, 8 46 (8t h

Ci r. 20 04 ). W e a l s o c o n c lu de th at su bs ta nt ia l no n- he ars ay ev id en ce of a vi ol en t

as sa ul t, in cl ud in g Si m

m s’s ad m is si on s in hi s te xt m es sa ge s to Nik ki Si m m s aft er th e

in ci de nt

, su pp or te d th e co ur t’s de ci si on to rev ok e su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d im po se a 60

-

m on th se nt en ce. Thu s, an y erro r in fai li ng to co nd uc t th e Bel l ba la nc in g an al y si s was
ha rm le ss , as i n B la ck Bear , 54 2 F .3d at 2 55 -5 6.

Si m m s ar gu es th at th e co ur t’s offer of “ a co nt in ui ng ob jecti on ” whe n i t ru le d

on hi s o b je c t i on to th e 20 10 po li ce rep or t pr es erv ed al l co nc ei va bl e co nf ro nt at io n
ob jecti on s to an y he ars ay ev id en ce of fere d at an y su bs eq ue nt po in t in th e he ari ng

. Thi s co nt en ti on is wit ho ut m eri t. “ A pa rty m ay no t rel y on a co nt in ui ng ob jecti on
lo dg ed on on e ev id en ti ary gr ou nd to arg ue a di ffer en t gr ou nd fo r ex cl us io n on

ap pe al .” Uni te d St at es v. McV e i g h, 15 3 F.3 d 11 66

, 12 01 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 98 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 52 6 U.S. 10 07 (1 99 9) ; se e Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 53 4 F.3 d 90 3, 91 4- 15 (8 th

Ci r. 20 08 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 55 5 U.S. 12 01 (2 00 9)

. An ob jecti on th at a no n- au th or m ay

no t re ad a po li ce re po rt i nt o e vi de nc e d id no t p res erv e th e qu es ti on whe th er Si m m s
ha d a du e pr oc es s rig ht to co nf ro nt hi s vi ct im

, Nik ki Si m m s. “ Pres erv in g an is su e is

a m at te r of

. . . cl earl y st at in g th e gr ou nd s fo r th e ob jecti on , so th at th e tri al co ur t ha s

an op po rtu ni ty to pr ev en t or corre ct th e erro r in th e fir st in st an ce.” Uni te d Stat es v.

Thi s is no t a cas e li ke J o h n s o n , 7 10 F.3 d at 78 6, whe re th e go ve rn m en t was 2

un pr ep ared to pr es en t a pr op erl y -s up po rte d cas e fo r rev oc at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Giv en th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce br ou gh t to th e he ari ng an d in tro du ced

, it is pr op er to

as su m e th e go ve rn m en t was pr ep ared to res po nd to a he ars ay or c o n f r o n t a ti on ob jecti on m ad e to th e ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en t s by Ni kk i Si m m s, ei th er by p ro vi di ng
go od cau se for he r ab se nc e, or pro du ci ng he r if th e co ur t re qu ire d l iv e te st im on y

.

-8

-W il li am s, 99 4 F.2 d 12 87

, 12 94 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). As Si m m s ga ve th e di st ric t co ur t no
opport uni ty to ad dr es s th e Bel l is su e reg ard in g Nik ki Si m m s, th ere was no pl ai n erro r.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t. I de pa rt fro m th e m ajor it y on ly to th e ex te nt th e m ajor it y

co nc lu de s th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of Pro ba ti on Offi cer You ng ’s te st im on y

reg ard in g 20 10 ba tt ery co nv ic ti on was ha rm le ss

. I do no t be li ev e we can

co nc lu si ve ly hol d t he ad m is si on ha rm le ss ba se d o n t hi s re co rd

.

The m ajor it y de em s th e ad m is si on ha rm le ss , ci ti ng th e ad m is si on of th e

tra ns cri pt of

j udgm en t ev id en ci ng th e 20 10 ba tt ery co nv ic ti on , an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s

st at em en t th e 60 -m on th se nt en ce was ba se d “ es pe ci al ly” on th e vi ol en t 20 12 in ci de nt

.

Pro ba ti on Offi cer You ng ’s te st im on y reg ard in g th e e ve nt s le ad in g up to th e
ba tt ery co nv ic ti on , ho wev er, wen t be y on d th e co nt en ts of th e tra ns cri pt of jud gm en t,

whi ch so le ly co nc ern ed th e fact of th e c o n v i ct io n. Pro ba ti on Offi cer You ng

im pr op erl y te st ifi ed to th e vi ol en t ch arac te r of Si m m s’s act io ns du rin g th os e ev en ts

.

It is to be no te d her e th at th e di st ric t cou rt’s revo cat io n and se nt en ce had two

as pe ct s. It fo un d th e fact of Si m m s’s 20 10 ba tt ery co nv ic ti on as on e of th e gr ou nd s

to co nc lu de Si m

m s ha d co m

m it te d a Cl as s A vi ol at io n of hi s pr ob at io n. The di st ric t

co ur t th en , ba se d on th e vi ol en t na tu re of Si m m s’s 20 10 an d 20 12 act io ns , de pa rte d

an d v ari ed up ward fro m

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e as so ci at ed wit h a Cla ss A vi ol at io n.

It is po ss ib le th e di st ric t co ur t ba se d th e se nt en ce so le ly on th e vi ol en ce of th e

20 12 ev en ts

. Howev er, I do no t di sc ou nt th e po ss ib il it y th at a po rti on of th e se nt en ce

was ba se d on th e te st im on y S i mm s h a d e ng ag ed in ot he r vi ol en t vi ol at io ns of hi s

-9

-pa ro le

. Acco rd in gl y , be cau se I be li ev e we can no t de fin it iv el y ho ld th e ad m is si on of

Pro ba ti on Offi cer You ng ’s te st im on y ab ou t th e ev en ts le ad in g to th e 20 10 co nv ic ti on

as be in g har m le ss , I wou ld va cat e th e rev oc at io n and rem an d th e cas e to th e di st ric t

co ur t fo r a n ew rev oc at io n h eari ng

.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on , I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

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

-1 0-