Opinion ID: 821312
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of Second Term of Supervised Release

Text: Defendant’s second term of supervised release began on December 23, 2011, when he was released from a federal prison in Petersburg, Virginia. At that time the Bureau of Prisons provided Defendant a bus ticket to Utah and instructed him to report in person within 72 hours to the United States Probation Office for the District of Utah. Defendant failed to do so. A month later, on January 23, 2012, the United States Marshals Service arrested him in Illinois on a warrant for violating conditions of his supervised release. At a hearing March 20, Defendant pleaded guilty to four of the alleged violations: failing to report to the probation office in Utah as instructed; failing to comply with the Limited Internet Access Agreement; associating with a convicted felon; and -3- viewing, possessing, or accessing sexually explicit material. Defense counsel then notified the court that the parties had reached a plea agreement. In exchange for Defendant’s four admissions, the prosecutor agreed to recommend 11 months’ imprisonment. Defendant requested 9 months’ imprisonment. The court took issue with the parties’ proposal: I’ve had a review of this case, counsel, and I’m not sure that I can agree to that agreement. Is there more that you wish to present to the court? This case . . . , the history of it, is concerning to the court. The last time that there was a violation [of supervised release by Defendant] the court entered a sentence of 18 months. Now, I can’t see why the court should enter a sentence less than what I did before when there’s now a re[-]offense or re-violation, and it appears to me to be very serious. R., Vol. 3 at 16-17. Defense counsel responded by stating that Defendant had lost his bus ticket after arriving in Chicago and had contacted an acquaintance—a convicted felon—to secure lodging. He said that Defendant had called a probation officer in Utah, letting him “know of the problem,” id. at 19, and that Defendant had “promptly . . . registered . . . as a sex offender with the Illinois authorities,” id. at 18. Defense counsel continued: Now there’s the issue that he accessed sexually explicit material. . . . [H]e received an image on his cell phone or a couple of images . . . of an adult female . . . . But this was strictly an adult female. And no underage, not even close from what I understand. Id. at 18-19. The prosecutor was then given an opportunity to address the court. She asserted, among other things, that “it’s not just a picture. There is a large amount of -4- pornography” on “this computer.” Id. at 21-22. Nevertheless, she still recommended an 11-month sentence. At the conclusion of the March 20 hearing, the court reiterated its conviction that the history of the case was “very troubl[ing].” Id. at 22. It noted that although the advisory sentencing range was 5 to 11 months’ imprisonment, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 7B1.4, the statutory maximum was two years, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), “and supervised release is up to life,” R., Vol. 3 at 22. Ultimately, the court stated: Considering the history of this case and the recurrence of conduct similar to what was addressed [in the first revocation hearing, for] which the court imposed a sentence of 18 months, it is the judgment of the court that . . . the terms of supervised release have been violated. The supervised release order heretofore entered is revoked. . . . [T]he defendant . . . is hereby sentenced to 24 months custody in the . . . Bureau of Prisons, with a term of life supervised release to follow. Id. at 23. Several days later the prosecutor sent a letter to the district court and defense counsel, explaining that she had confused Defendant’s case with a similar case and had therefore made “a misstatement” at the March 20 hearing. She had referenced computer equipment containing a lot of “adult pornography,” which “was inaccurate.” Id., Vol. 4 at 1. Rather, Defendant was in possession of two cell phones at the time of his arrest, one that contained sexually explicit adult images, but he did not have any “other ‘computer’ equipment.” Id. -5- On March 29 the district court held a hearing to address the letter. After the prosecutor summarized her mistake, the court stated its position—that the misstatement did not impact Defendant’s sentencing. It referred to the “compounding of the violations,” in that this was Defendant’s second violation of supervised release and the court had imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for Defendant’s first violation. Id., Vol. 3 at 30. Defense counsel countered that the prosecutor’s misstatement violated the plea agreement, and he requested Defendant’s admissions be withdrawn and an evidentiary hearing held. The prosecutor replied that she had honored the agreement by recommending an 11-month sentence. The court concluded that the prosecutor had not breached the agreement. It further explained that it was under no obligation to adhere to the parties’ agreement, that the prosecutor’s “comments in court regarding the pornography had no bearing on [the] decision . . . , whether the pornography was from a computer or whatever it was from,” and that “the Court had ample evidence in the presentence report” to impose its sentence. Id. at 32. The court denied Defendant’s request to withdraw his admissions and to hold an evidentiary hearing, stating that the “sentence will stand.” Id. -6-