Opinion ID: 783986
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Temporary Detention as a Constructive Revocation of Parole

Text: 19 The government alternatively asserts that the District Court erred because the temporary detentions should have been treated as constructive revocations of parole and aggregated with Ramirez's prior sentence. Specifically, the government argues that the term revocation, as used in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k), should be interpreted to include any instance in which confinement is imposed due to a parole violation, even where parole is not formally revoked under state law. 20 The Guidelines require that revocations of parole be considered in calculating a sentence so that the original term of imprisonment [is added] to any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)(1). To qualify as a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant must have actually served a period of imprisonment on such sentence. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n. 2. In addition, 21 [r]evocation of ... parole ... may affect the time period under which certain sentences are counted as provided in § 4A1.2(d)(2) and (e). For the purposes of determining the applicable time period, use the following: ... (ii) in the case of any other confinement sentence for an offense committed prior to the defendant's eighteenth birthday, the date of the defendant's last release from confinement on such sentence ( see § 4A1.2(d)(2)(A)). 22 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)(2)(B). 23 In determining the meaning of revocation under the Guidelines, we must apply a uniform, federal definition, not dependent upon the vagaries of state law. See United States v. Martinez, 232 F.3d 728, 732 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 591-92, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990)). Thus, to the extent the District Court relied exclusively on state law definitions of revocation, it erred. However, because we determine that under a federal definition of revocation, Ramirez's parole was not revoked in either instance, such error by the District Court was harmless. 24
25 The purpose of creating a uniform federal definition of terms within the Guidelines is to effectuate consistent nationwide application of federal legislation. See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 591, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (quoting Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 119-20, 103 S.Ct. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983)). In determining what the federal definition of a particular term is, courts look to the plain language and legislative history of the statute, as well as the use of the term in practice. See Taylor, 495 U.S. at 594-98, 110 S.Ct. 2143. As with all penal statutes, the rule of lenity requires that we construe ambiguous terms in favor of the accused. Id. at 596, 110 S.Ct. 2143. This maxim of statutory construction, however, cannot dictate an implausible interpretation of a statute, nor one at odds with the generally accepted contemporary meaning of a term. Id. (citing Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 49 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979)). 26 In contrast to criminal offenses, the elements of which frequently vary from state to state, the definition of revocation is consistent from state to state. Like the terms conviction or plea, the term revocation describes a specific outcome of a process, the basic requirements of which have been clearly articulated by the Supreme Court. We look to these constitutional requirements to determine the outer boundaries for the federal definition of revocation before proceeding to consider the statutory text and contemporary understanding of the term. 27
28 Before a revocation of parole or probation can occur, the Constitution requires that there be (1) a formal finding that a probationer or parolee has committed a violation and (2) a determination that the violation was serious enough to warrant reimposing the probationer's or parolee's original sentence. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 479-80, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (setting out requirements for parole revocation); see also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (extending requirements of Morrissey to probation revocation hearings). Because the consequences of the revocation process are serious, see Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593, the probationer or parolee must be afforded an opportunity to present evidence to suggest that his violation does not warrant revocation. See id. at 487-88, 92 S.Ct. 2593. In addition to a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was reasonable cause to believe that a probationer or parolee had violated the conditions of his probation or parole, a final revocation hearing must be held by the probation or parole authority, if so desired by the probationer or parolee, in order to determine whether revocation is actually warranted. See id. at 486-88, 92 S.Ct. 2593. 29 A violation alone does not automatically trigger a revocation. See id. at 479, 92 S.Ct. 2593. Probation or parole authorities generally have two options: modify or extend the conditions of supervision, or revoke. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2) (2002). Where other steps are available which will protect society and improve chances of rehabilitation, revocation is generally inappropriate. See Morrissey, 408 U.S at 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, see also id. at 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (Society ... has an interest in not having parole revoked because of erroneous information or because of an erroneous evaluation of the need to revoke parole, given the breach of parole conditions.). The probation or parole authority, having both expertise and the entire record of the probationer or parolee before it, is presumptively the party in the best position to choose whether to revoke or impose some form of intermediate sanction. See id. at 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (deciding what to do about the violation once it is identified ... is not purely factual but also predictive and discretionary). 30 In sum, before a district court can conclude that there has been a revocation pursuant to § 4A1.2(k), there must be, at minimum, a showing that the requirements of Morrissey were met. See Johnson, 205 F.3d at 1199-1200 (finding record insufficient to uphold finding of revocation where probationer was detained three times and no revocation hearing was ever held). Where a parole or probation authority has effectuated an actual revocation, the government can rely on the record from that proceeding to show that § 4A1.2(k) is applicable. See United States v. Newman, 912 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1990) (where government has presented record of prior conviction, defendant may rebut government's assertion that prior conviction occurred by showing constitutional invalidity of proceeding). However, where no such record is present, we must presume that no revocation occurred. 31
32 Keeping in mind the requirements of Morrissey, and following the two general principles that (1) [c]ourts can and should ... adopt statutory interpretations, when feasible, that will avoid serious constitutional issues, United States v. Hernandez, 322 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir. 2003) (as amended), and (2) penal statutes must be strictly construed, Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1432 n. 11 (9th Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 18 U.S. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37 (1820)), we now turn to the language in the Guidelines discussing revocation. 33 The particular provision at issue here requires that the original term of imprisonment [be added] to any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)(1). Neither the Guidelines nor Commentary to the provision provides a definition of revocation. However, the conventional understanding of `revoke' [is] `to annul by recalling or taking back.' Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 704, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000) (quoting WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 1944 (1981)). Under this definition, revocation occurs when the privilege of remaining under parole or probation supervision, as opposed to imprisonment, is annulled or cancelled. Modifications of the terms of parole or probation, under which the parolee or probationer remains under the supervision of probation, are not covered, as parole or probation supervision continues and is therefore not annulled. 6 34 This construction is consistent with the Guidelines' own probation scheme, which gives sentencing courts discretion to revoke ... or [] extend the term of probation or supervised release and/or modify the conditions of supervision. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2) (emphasis added). By articulating a clear distinction between formal revocation proceedings and modifications imposed as a result of lower-level violations, the Guidelines contemplate the serious nature of revocation and distinguish it from lesser sanctions imposed without the full protections Morrissey requires. Where the terms of probation are modified, including imposition of temporary periods of confinement, but the probationer remains under the supervision of the probation entity, revocation has not occurred. But see United States v. Glover, 154 F.3d 1291, 1293-94 (11th Cir.1998) (discussed infra ) (rejecting defendant's argument that modifications cannot be treated as revocations under the Guidelines). 7 Thus, the term revocation, as used in § 4A1.2(k)(1), requires that before probation or parole supervision can continue after a revocation, the sentencing authority must sentence the defendant anew. 35 The rule of lenity favors such a narrow construction. We will not interpret a federal criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what Congress intended. Latimer, 991 F.2d at 1514 (quoting Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980)) (citation omitted). In this case, the government has presented no evidence that Congress intended any violation accompanied by a confinement sanction to be treated as a revocation for the purposes of § 4A1.2(k). As discussed above, we believe that the plain language suggests the contrary. Given that neither the text nor the commentary contemplate such an interpretation, and given the constitutional concerns raised by subsequently recategorizing informal modification procedures as implicitly compliant with the requirements of Morrissey, we must construe the statute narrowly. 36 Finally, we note that this construction of § 4A1.2(k) does not preclude the use of evidence of parole or probation conduct that the government believes is relevant to sentencing, nor does it undermine the general premise that repeated criminal behavior is an indicator of a limited likelihood of successful rehabilitation. U.S.S.G. ch. 4, pt. A., introductory cmt. (2001); contra Glover, 154 F.3d at 1294 (quoting Glidden, 77 F.3d at 40) (indicating that failing to treat probation violations as revocations under § 4A1.2(k) would be contrary to the purpose of the Guidelines). The government is still free to present to the court reliable information ... [that] indicates that the criminal history category does not adequately reflect ... the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. 37 The government nevertheless argues that any term of confinement presumptively reflects an intent to annul the privilege of parole or probation, regardless of whether the parole or probation entity expresses such an intent in a formal determination. Essentially, the government is arguing that a narrow construction is at odds with the generally accepted contemporary meaning of revocation. Taylor, 495 U.S. at 596, 110 S.Ct. 2143 (citing Perrin, 444 U.S. at 49 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. 311). We agree that any uniform federal definition should comport with state and federal probation practice. Interpretation of the Guidelines can be informed by how the states interpret and apply their own criminal laws. United States v. Wood, 52 F.3d 272, 276 n. 4 (9th Cir.1995). We therefore turn to practice in order to address whether the government's suggested presumption is warranted.
38 It is clear that, in practice, the imposition of a term of confinement during the ordinary course of parole or probation does not necessarily mean that a revocation has occurred. State statutes describe a wide array of intermediate sanctions which are clearly intended as alternatives to revocation; some, like the statute in this case, are uniquely targeted at juvenile parolees or probationers. 8 The most commonly available sanctions are modifications such as increased supervision, lengthened terms of parole, or enrollment in so-called boot camp or scared straight programs. See supra note 8. Temporary detention statutes like the one utilized in the instant case are also common. See id. 39 From this vast array of options, parole or probation officials choose the punishment that they believe will best address the needs of the individual parolee or probationer. A finding of a technical or lower-level violation typically results in the imposition of an intermediary sanction and not in actual revocation. See generally U.S. Probation Office, CENT. DIST. OF CAL. REVOCATION WORKBOOK (last revised 2003). Because their primary aim is to act as a warning to the parolee or probationer, modification procedures generally lack the formality or due process protections required by actual revocation; they are not intended to rise to the level of a formal revocation. 9 40 It is clear that a violation can result in a vast range of sanctions, including revocation, none of which are necessarily directly related to either the seriousness of the violation or the culpability of the parolee or probationer. Cf. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a) (distinguishing between mandatory versus discretionary revocation on the basis of the seriousness of the violation). The inherently flexible and discretionary nature of the different state systems, which aim to consider the totality of the parolee's or probationer's history as well as the gravity of the violation, leads to discrepancies in the type of sanctions handed down for even the same minor violations. A definition of revocation that looks only to the nature of the sanction imposed would thus result in a rule that is more arbitrary than what would result if we adhered to an actual revocation requirement. Parolees or probationers who engaged in similar offenses would receive vastly different sentences based on unsubstantiated guesses as to what parole or probation boards intended to do. We do not believe that Congress contemplated such a result when it wrote § 4A1.2(k). 41 In short, both Morrissey and practice instruct that we should defer to the original parole or probation entity to determine whether or not revocation is an appropriate sanction for the violation. By engaging in ad-hoc determinations that violations are of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant revocation, or by interpreting a particular sanction as indicative of an intent to revoke, subsequent courts usurp the discretion of the parole or probation authority. Where the parole or probation authority followed the procedures required for revocation but explicitly chose not to initiate revocation, we cannot second-guess that determination any more than we could determine that a defendant who was punished as severely as they would have been for murder was constructively convicted of murder.
42 We recognize that our narrow construction of § 4A1.2(k) potentially conflicts with the holdings of other circuits addressing this question. See Glover, 154 F.3d at 1294-95 (holding that  § 4A1.2(k) contemplates that, in calculating a defendant's ... sentence ..., the district court will aggregate any term of imprisonment imposed because of a probation violation); United States v. Reed, 94 F.3d 341 (7th Cir.1996) (embracing Glidden ); Glidden, 77 F.3d at 40 (holding that when a probationer is found to have violated probation [and in response has been] ordered ... to serve a period of incarceration, we think it proper to view that order as at least a partial revocation ... within the scope of ... § 4A1.2(k)(1).). 43 As an initial matter, we note that only one of the other circuits considering the question has dealt specifically with the modification versus actual revocation distinction. See Glover, 154 F.3d at 1294-95. In the other two cases, the probationer was resentenced to probation after the period of incarceration, see Reed, 94 F.3d at 342-43; Glidden, 77 F.3d at 39. Thus the other decisions were more closely in accord with the commonly understood meaning of revocation. In addition, none of the other cases dealt with a statute such as the temporary detention statute in this case, which explicitly creates a diversionary disposition only applicable to juveniles. See generally, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(f) (juvenile diversionary dispositions not counted as sentences under the Guidelines). 44 More importantly, none of these cases consider, either explicitly or implicitly, the constitutional requirements for revocation set out in Morrissey. Nor did any of the courts have the benefit of the usual definition of revocation articulated by the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States. 10 The only rationale provided for their holdings is the general commentary introducing the Criminal History chapter of the Guidelines. See Glover, 154 F.3d at 1294; Glidden, 77 F.3d at 40. As discussed above, we believe that the availability of § 4A1.3 adequately addresses the concern that the failure to consider such violations will result in inadequate criminal history scores. 45 To the extent they are inconsistent with this opinion, we find the decisions in the other circuits treating any violation followed by confinement as a revocation of parole under § 4A1.2(k) to be unpersuasive. To the extent they presume that constructive revocations exist, the holdings ignore the plain language of § 4A1.2(k) and the general rule that we construe penal statutes strictly. They also fail to consider the constitutional requirements for revocation set out in Morrissey. Finally, the other circuits' approach does not grant sufficient deference to the reasoned determinations of parole or probation authorities, who are in a better position than subsequent courts to determine whether a particular violation is sufficiently grave to warrant revocation. 46
47 In the instant case, neither temporary detention can be equated with a revocation of parole that could be aggregated with Ramirez's juvenile sentence under § 4A1.2(k). Indeed, both detentions were clearly ordered as alternatives to revoking Ramirez's parole. 48 With regard to the first violation, there has been no showing that the requirements of Morrissey were met. See Johnson, 205 F.3d at 1199-1200 (finding record insufficient to uphold finding of revocation where probationer was detained three times and no revocation hearing was ever held). There was neither a probable cause hearing nor a violation finding. 11 49 With regard to the second temporary detention, the parole authority neither made a finding of revocation nor returned Ramirez to parole subsequent to his detention. In fact, the YOPB explicitly found that no revocation was necessary and stated that Ramirez would be better served by remaining under the supervision of parole officials. The temporary detention is thus more accurately viewed as a modification of the terms of Ramirez's parole, as opposed to a revocation. In light of the usual meaning of the term revocation, and state and federal practice, we hold that the second temporary detention does not fall within the scope of § 4A1.2(k). 50 In sum, we find that Ramirez's parole was never actually revoked, nor can his time in temporary detention be equated with imprisonment, as he remained under parole supervision. We therefore hold that the District Court did not err in determining that neither of the two temporary detentions ordered by YOPB constituted a constructive revocation of parole under § 4A1.2(k).