Court Opinion

ID: 9907297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 01:00:31.067168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:36.285122
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50070         Document: 00516990436             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                December 5, 2023
                                       No. 23-50070                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Willie D. Fields,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:11-CR-973-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Appellant Willie Fields argues the district court improperly revoked
   his supervised release without first holding a hearing and issuing written
   findings. We see no error, plain or otherwise, because Fields signed the
   revocation order himself, thereby waiving any right to a hearing. See Fed. R.
   Crim. P. 32.1(b) (allowing defendant to waive hearing). AFFIRMED.

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50070      Document: 00516990436          Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                    No. 23-50070

                                         I.
          Fields pled guilty of various drug and firearm offenses in March 2013.
   He was sentenced to 130 months imprisonment—later reduced to 123
   months—followed by five years of supervised release. After serving his
   prison term, Fields began supervised release in October 2021. This proved
   short-lived.
          In August 2022, Fields’s probation officer petitioned to revoke his
   supervised release based on nine violations of his release conditions. The
   petition was later amended to add a tenth violation. The first violation
   (“Violation Number 1”) was for committing elderly-bodily injury and
   aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. According to a San Antonio Police
   Department report, Fields punched a woman he was dating, then pushed the
   woman’s aunt, pointed a gun at her, and stated, “Bitch, I’ll kill you.” The
   other violations included associating with documented gang members,
   possessing and using cocaine, and repeatedly driving without a license
   despite his probation officer’s directives not to do so. Fields was arrested and
   appointed counsel. After a two-day hearing before the magistrate judge, he
   was denied bond and placed in custody pending his final revocation hearing.
          At a January 2023 status conference, the district court asked the
   government if it intended to seek revocation based on all the alleged
   violations or just a subset. The court explained that Fields needed to know
   what violations he was being charged with “so he c[ould] make an informed
   decision as to whether he want[ed] to reach an agreed order or contest it.”
   The government responded that any revocation hearing would “center
   around” Violation Number 1, the only one the parties disputed. The
   government also noted that the parties had discussed “possible dispositions
   that would not include Mr. Fields admitting to [that] . . . violation,” and that
   they “might be able to reach an agreement.” The court gave the parties

                                          2
Case: 23-50070       Document: 00516990436             Page: 3      Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                        No. 23-50070

   fifteen minutes to discuss a deal, at the end of which the parties reported
   progress but no resolution. The court set the full revocation hearing for
   March 2023, while urging the parties to “continue [their] talks.”
          The parties did so and reached an agreement the next day. They
   submitted, and the court entered, an “agreed order revoking supervised
   release.” The order was signed by Fields, his attorney, the AUSA, and the
   district judge. It explained that, “[u]pon agreement of the parties, the Court
   finds that the Defendant committed the violations alleged in the revocation
   petition filed in this case, EXCEPT THAT THE COURT DOES NOT
   FIND         THAT          VIOLATION              NUMBER             ONE         WAS
   COMMITTED.” Finding it “in the interests of justice to revoke the
   Defendant’s supervised release,” the order imposed a prison term of 12
   months and one day, to be followed by five years supervised release.
          Two weeks later, however, Fields changed his mind. He filed a pro se
   notice of appeal, complaining that he had “explained to [his] attorney
   numerous times that [he] was not interested in a plea” and that “he
   believe[d] that he could have done better with a revocation hearing” because
   the court would have ensured Fields “wasn’t cheated.” Fields also moved to
   dismiss his appointed counsel, and to “remove” the AUSA for
   “prosecutorial misconduct and vindictive prosecution.” These filings did
   not explain why Fields personally signed the order revoking his supervised
   release, however.
          New counsel was appointed for Fields’s appeal. 1 Fields’s sole
   contention on appeal is that the district court violated his due process rights
   under Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), by failing to hold a revocation

          _____________________
          1
            After appellate briefing was completed, Fields moved to dismiss his new
   appointed counsel. The district court granted the motion, so Fields now proceeds pro se.

                                              3
Case: 23-50070        Document: 00516990436             Page: 4      Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                        No. 23-50070

   hearing and provide him a written explanation for its decision to revoke his
   supervised release. He asks us to vacate the agreed order revoking his
   supervised release and to remand to the district court for a revocation
   hearing.
                                             II.
           Fields did not raise this due process issue below. Indeed, he agreed to
   the very order he now seeks to vacate. We therefore review for plain error.
   See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Botello,
   769 F. App’x 147, 148 (5th Cir. 2019). 2 Accordingly, Fields must show “clear
   or obvious” error that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Vasquez,
   899 F.3d 363, 373 (5th Cir. 2018). And even if Fields can do so, we will
   exercise our discretion to correct such an error only if it “seriously affected
   the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United
   States v. Huntsberry, 956 F.3d 270, 283 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
                                             III.
           Fields argues he was wrongfully denied a revocation hearing and
   written findings under Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 487–88. In that case, the
   Supreme Court held that a revocation defendant is entitled to a hearing that
   “lead[s] to a final evaluation of any contested relevant facts and
   consideration of whether the facts as determined warrant revocation.” Id. at
   488; see also, e.g., United States v. Turner, 741 F.2d 696, 697 (5th Cir. 1984)
   (discussing Morrissey). 3 After the hearing, the court must issue a “written
           _____________________
           2
              Fields’s opening brief suggests we should review for abuse of discretion. But
   Fields—who filed no reply brief—offers no response to the government’s argument that
   he failed to preserve this due process issue.
           3
            Morrissey enumerated detailed requirements for this hearing, which have since
   been codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 487–
   88; Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(A)–(E).

                                              4
Case: 23-50070      Document: 00516990436           Page: 5    Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                     No. 23-50070

   statement . . . as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking
   [supervised release].” Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489. The hearing, however,
   need be held only if the defendant “desire[s]” it. Id. at 487–88. The Federal
   Rule of Criminal Procedure that codified Morrisey’s requirements similarly
   provides that the revocation hearing may be “waived” by the defendant. See
   Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2) (guaranteeing a revocation hearing “[u]nless
   waived by the person” in custody for violating a condition of probation or
   supervised release).
          We see no violation of Fields’s rights under Morrissey. The district
   court revoked Fields’s supervised release without a hearing because Fields
   asked the court to do so. As discussed, Fields personally signed and—
   through counsel—submitted an order agreeing he had violated nine
   conditions and therefore revoking his release. He does not argue that his
   agreement was unknowing or involuntary. As the government correctly
   argues, then, Fields explicitly indicated he did not “desire” a revocation
   hearing and thus waived his right to a hearing. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 487–88;
   Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2). Fields has no answer to the government’s
   argument and, in fact, filed no reply brief at all. Accordingly, we see no error,
   plain or otherwise, under Morrissey.
          In any event, Fields does not explain how the district court’s supposed
   failure to hold a hearing affected his substantial rights. Vasquez, 899 F.3d at
   373. As discussed, the only factual issue contested by the parties concerned
   Violation Number 1, the elder-assault charge. But the agreed revocation
   order explicitly excluded any finding that Fields committed that violation. So,
   we cannot see how the lack of a revocation hearing, even assuming it was
   error, affected Fields’s substantial rights.
                                                                   AFFIRMED.

                                           5