Opinion ID: 62137
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Condition on Who May Reside with Torres

Text: The district court imposed the following condition on Torres’s supervised release: “The defendant shall not reside with anyone who is not a blood relative, or that the defendant is not legally married to whether it be a civil or religious ceremony during the term of supervision.” Torres admits that he failed to object and therefore the claim is reviewed for plain error. Before an appellate court can correct an error not raised below, there must be: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) that affects substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). If all three prerequisites are met, the Court may exercise its discretion to correct a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. at 735-37. The government concedes that the court’s sua sponte requirement that Torres live with a spouse or blood relative is plain error. We agree. In United States v. Smith, the district court ordered that “during his period of supervised release, defendant shall not cause [the] conception of another child other than to his wife, unless he can demonstrate he is fully providing support to the three 13 No. 07-50286 children presently in existence, and the two en ventre sa mere.” 972 F.2d 960, 961 (8th Cir. 1992) (brackets in opinion). The Eighth Circuit opined that the “number of children that Smith has fathered is in no way related to ‘the nature and circumstances of’ Smith’s drug offense.” Id. at 962. Further, the Court explained that “[t]here is no reason to believe that restricting Smith from fathering more children will deter Smith from future criminal conduct, protect the public, or assist in Smith’s rehabilitation.” Id. Thus, the Court reversed the condition. In the instant case, the special condition would prohibit Torres from residing with an individual who is not his spouse or related by blood. Indeed, if read literally, it would prohibit Torres from living with a step-brother. We find the instant restriction is overbroad and not reasonably related to Torres’s offense, the need to protect the public, or Torres’s rehabilitation. We find reversible plain error and strike this condition from the judgment.