Opinion ID: 6103672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wyoming Federal District Court History

Text: Indictment, Plea, and Sentencing While Mr. Englehart’s case was proceeding in Illinois state court, a federal grand jury in the District of Wyoming indicted him in 2012 for failing to register as a sex offender under SORNA, possession of child pornography, and Social Security fraud. After he was transferred back to Wyoming, Mr. Englehart entered a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to the SORNA charge and the Government agreed to dismiss the child pornography and Social Security fraud charges. In January 2019, the district court sentenced him to time served and five years of supervised release. It imposed special conditions of supervised release, which, as relevant here: (1) Prohibited Mr. Englehart from possessing, sending, or receiving “any pornographic, sexually oriented, or sexually stimulating visual, auditory, telephonic or electronic signs, signals or sounds from any source.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 36. (2) Required him to participate in and successfully complete sex offender treatment. Id. Englehart fit to stand trial. C.M. testified at Mr. Englehart’s trial on the 2009 Charges. 4 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 5 (3) Prohibited him from associating with children under the age of 18. Id. Supervised Release Violations In October 2020, the Government petitioned the court to modify Mr. Englehart’s supervised release conditions (the “Modification Petition”). Mr. Englehart’s probation officer, Tracy Morton, alleged that Mr. Englehart had advised him of four violations of the conditions: (1) “On April 9, 2019, the defendant advised a female brought a hand-held device to his residence and on the device was a pornographic video that was shown to him.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 44. (2) “On December 4, 2019, the defendant advised that a male neighbor came across the hallway to his residence with a hand-held device and showed the defendant a pornographic video.” Id. at 45. (3) “On April 15, 2020, the defendant advised he was hanging out with a female friend, Kimmy, who requested the defendant walk her 4 year old daughter to the local park. The defendant advised he began to walk the minor to the park and remembered he must be in the presence of an adult. He advised he immediately called the minor’s mother and she joined them.” Id. The probation officer confirmed that Mr. Englehart had disclosed his background to the child’s mother. Id. (4) “On September 23, 2020, the defendant advised he has been working through childhood trauma issues with his mental health counselor. He advised he disclosed something very traumatizing to her during a recent counseling session. He advised he borrowed an unauthorized cell phone from a friend in a motel where he resides and watched pornography for ten days in a row in response to disclosing his trauma. He spoke to his mental health counselor about his response to disclosing the traumatic information and advised she 5 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 6 agreed he handled himself appropriately given the situation.” Id. at 46. The Government requested that Mr. Englehart’s supervised release conditions be modified to add conditions requiring Mr. Englehart to: (1) Participate in a psychosexual evaluation and sex offender treatment; (2) Participate in mental health treatment; and (3) Sign release forms authorizing his treatment providers to disclose confidential information to his probation officer.3 The Government also requested that the sexual material prohibition previously imposed be replaced with a revised condition containing more specific language. Modification Hearing In January 2021, the district court held a hearing on the proposed modification of Mr. Englehart’s supervised release conditions (the “Modification Hearing”). At the hearing, the Government presented testimony from (a) Officer Tracy Morton; (b) FBI Special Agent Tory Smith; and (c) Dr. Charles Denison, a licensed forensic psychologist. We summarize the relevant testimony below.
The Government first called Officer Morton. She testified that Mr. Englehart was initially difficult to work with but was making progress under her supervision. 3 In addition to the conditions listed above, the Government also requested that Mr. Englehart be required to obtain full-time employment and find appropriate housing. Mr. Englehart does not challenge those conditions on appeal. 6 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 7 She then described the supervised release violations charged in the petition for modification, including that Mr. Englehart volunteered the information about the violations to her. Officer Morton testified that early in his supervised release, Mr. Englehart underwent a SOTIPS4 sex offender assessment “to assess his risk level for treatment.” Id. at 19. She said Mr. Englehart “assessed as a low risk on the higher end,” and “the counselor felt he was emotionally unstable at that time and suggested that he look into mental health treatment.” Id. at 19-20. Once Mr. Englehart was “emotionally stable,” the counselor “would reevaluate if he should complete another assessment.” Id. at 20. Officer Morton opined that an additional psychosexual evaluation would be helpful because, although Mr. Englehart completed a “very basic sex offender assessment,” the SOTIPS, “the probation office really doesn’t have a . . . detailed history[] for Mr. Englehart, so we can’t really determine what treatment he has had in the past or what he may need now.” Id. at 23. Officer Morton further testified that, although Mr. Englehart was voluntarily participating in mental health treatment, “it’s just important that he continues to participate in that, and I do believe he—he intends to.” Id. She described the proposed Mental Health Condition as a “safeguard.” Id. She also wanted Mr. Englehart to authorize the release of information for any treatment program. 4 SOTIPS stands for Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale. See SOTIPS: Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale, Nat’l Inst. of Corrs., https://perma.cc/8RE7-56VC. 7 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 8 Although Mr. Englehart had allowed her to participate in phone calls with his counselor and to attend in-person sessions, the Probation Office “like[s] to be able to have an open dialogue with the counselor just in case there’s something that needs to be discussed without the individual in the room.” Id. at 24. She later clarified that the Probation Office only wanted a release to “[c]onfirm attendance” at therapy, “maybe confirm progress,” and to know Mr. Englehart’s diagnosis. Id. at 44.
The government next called Agent Smith. He testified about Mr. Englehart’s apprehension in Wyoming in 2011, the child pornography that was found on Mr. Englehart’s computer, and the details he learned during interviews with H.W. and C.M. in 2018. H.W., the victim in Mr. Englehart’s 1998 Conviction, disclosed additional details of the sexual assault. ROA, Vol. 2 at 91. C.M. disclosed additional details of Mr. Englehart’s assault and that, as a child, she once saw a large amount of pornography in the trunk of Mr. Englehart’s car.
Dr. Charles Denison testified regarding the Government’s proposed Sexual Material Prohibition. He had not examined Mr. Englehart, but he had reviewed the presentence report for Mr. Englehart’s SORNA conviction and reports from Agent Smith and Officer Morton. Dr. Denison testified that risk factors for recidivism by convicted sex offenders generally include substance abuse, the quantity and nature of previous sexual deviance, general mental and behavioral stability or instability, and the type of 8 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 9 offense. He said use of adult pornography could also be a risk factor depending on the presence of other risk factors. He also testified that persons who are “prolific” users of adult pornography often become habituated to it, which leads them to seek out other forms of pornography. Id. at 80. Dr. Denison concluded that “several . . . risk factors” were present here, but he was “certainly not making any judgments about [Mr. Englehart’s] risk level because I haven’t conducted a psychosexual evaluation of Mr. Englehart.” Id. at 81. “[S]peaking generally,” he concluded that “even the use of adult pornography would be contraindicated or—or problematic” based on the presence of other risk factors including his criminal and psychological history, his known use of child pornography, and his recent “very high use” of pornography. Id. at 81-83. District Court’s Findings After the Government’s three witnesses testified, both sides presented argument and Mr. Englehart addressed the court. The district court then made the following findings:  Dr. Denison was a “significant authority” and had “provided some information to help the Court’s understanding.” ROA, Vol. 3 at 139.  Mr. Englehart had, by his own admission, viewed pornography in violation of his supervised release on three separate occasions, with the final incident involving “10 days straight” of viewing pornography. Id. at 139, 144.  Mr. Englehart has a history of alcoholism and mental illness. Id. at 142.  Mr. Englehart was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in 1998. Id. 9 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 10  Mr. Englehart has been accused of sexually abusing another minor in a similar fashion.5 Id. at 142.  Mr. Englehart’s computer contained child pornography when he was arrested in 2011. Id. at 144.  People at the motel where Mr. Englehart lives are “viewing and passing around pornographic materials,” and “we know from Dr. Denison’s testimony, looking from the back forward, the danger of that for persons such as Mr. Englehart who do have that history in their background.” Id. at 148. “As a consequence” of these findings, the district court reimposed the Sexual Material Prohibition with the Government’s proposed modifications. Id. The court then addressed whether Mr. Englehart should be required to submit to a psychosexual evaluation. It noted that nearly two years had passed since Mr. Englehart’s last evaluation, and during that time Mr. Englehart had committed three violations of supervised release involving pornography. One of those violations, the court noted, involved “10 days straight of viewing pornography not under any kind of supervision whatsoever.” Id. at 149. The court was not “impress[ed]” that Mr. Englehart’s therapist “may or may not have said that it was okay and part of treatment in this case.” Id. The court “f[ou]nd in that kind of situation with that progression that that is something that deserves to be looked into . . . to restore trust, if nothing else, and to give us some direction going forward with regard to this defendant.” Id. at 150. 5 The district court did not mention the allegations of the two children leading to the 2009 Charges. 10 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 11 Finally, the Government asked the court “to clarify about the mental health treatment program as well as the release forms.” Id. at 151. The court responded: “I don’t think there’s any requirement—I think he needs to continue with mental health, and there will be a requirement that he participate in mental health and that the information that needs to be furnished is . . . the diagnosis, is he compliant, is he attending.” Id. Modified Conditions The district court entered an order imposing the following modified or additional conditions of supervised release: Sexual Material Prohibition The Defendant shall not possess, in any form, materials depicting child pornography, child erotica, or nude or sexual depictions of any child; or any materials described at 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8). The Defendant shall not access, possess, send, or receive any visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B), if the materials taken as a whole, are primarily designed to arouse sexual desire.6 Mental Health Condition The defendant shall participate in and successfully complete a mental health treatment program approved by the U.S. Probation Officer, and abide by the rules, requirements, and conditions of the treatment program. The defendant shall not 6 Mr. Englehart notes that § 2256(2)(B)’s definition of “sexually explicit conduct” was taken from a child pornography statute. He suggests “it is unclear if the terms of the condition as stated in the district court’s order actually prohibit legal, adult pornography.” Aplt. Br. at 10-11 n.5. Apart from his failure to adequately develop this argument, it was clear at the Modification Hearing that the condition would apply to adult pornography. The district court cross-referenced to a definition in the statute and did not incorporate the statutory scheme. 11 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 12 discontinue treatment without the permission of the U.S. Probation Officer.7 Psychosexual Evaluation & Treatment Condition The defendant shall participate in and successfully complete a psychosexual evaluation with either Dr. Amanda Turlington or Dr. William Heineke. The cost of the evaluation will be paid for by the probation office. The defendant shall sign a release of authorization allowing the probation office to communicate with the provider and obtain the results of the evaluation. He shall participate in and successfully complete any recommended treatment in a program approved by the United States Probation Officer, and abide by the rules, requirements, and conditions of the treatment program. The defendant shall not discontinue treatment without the permission of the Probation Officer. ROA, Vol. 1 at 51-52.