Court Opinion

ID: 9401300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 18:00:44.485832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:51.939089
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60633        Document: 00516782209             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/12/2023

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

                                      No. 22-60633                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                              June 12, 2023
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Dvonte Amir King,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                              USDC No. 3:18-CR-239-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Dvonte Amir King has appealed the district court’s judgment
   revoking his supervised release. After an evidentiary hearing, the district
   court found that King had violated conditions of his supervised release by
   committing law violations—domestic violence/creating fear and being a

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60633      Document: 00516782209             Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/12/2023

                                       No. 22-60633

   felon in possession of a firearm—and by failing to pay the special assessment
   and fine imposed in the court’s original judgment.
          “Defendants in supervised release revocation proceedings have a
   qualified right to confront witnesses.” United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260,
   261 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972).
   King contends that the district court erred by denying his right to confront
   witnesses with respect to their out-of-court statements.
          Ordinarily, this court’s review of this question is de novo, subject to
   harmless error analysis. See Jimison, 825 F.3d at 262. To the extent that
   King failed to preserve error, our review is for plain error. See Holguin-
   Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764 (2020). Under the plain error
   standard, King must show that the district court committed a clear and
   obvious error that affected his substantial rights, that is, that it affected the
   outcome of the proceedings. See United States v. McDowell, 973 F.3d 362,
   365-66 (5th Cir. 2020). If such a showing is made, we have the discretion to
   reverse such errors if they seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.
          Three categories of evidence are at issue: (1) out-of-court statements
   made during 911 emergency calls; (2) out-of-court statements made by the
   domestic-violence victim to police officers during their investigation; and
   (3) out-of-court statements of the victim’s children that were recorded in a
   police officer’s incident report.
          “[T]here is no due process right to cross-examine nontestimonial
   declarants in revocation proceedings.”             McDowell, 973 F.3d at 366.
   Ordinarily, “[s]tatements made in response to an ongoing emergency on a
   911 call are not testimonial.” Id. “Therefore, they do not trigger the
   requirements of the Confrontation Clause, let alone due process.” Id. at 367.

                                                2
Case: 22-60633      Document: 00516782209          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/12/2023

                                    No. 22-60633

          In this case, because the domestic-violence victim appeared as a
   witness at the revocation hearing and was subject to cross examination, the
   admission of her out-of-court statements did not violate King’s right to due
   process. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 488-89.
          The district court determined that the safety and well-being of the
   children provided good cause for pretermitting confrontation. See Jimison,
   825 F.3d at 263; see also United States v. Alvear, 959 F.3d 185, 190 (5th Cir.
   2020). Any error in admitting the out-of-court statements of the children
   was harmless because there was ample other evidence supporting the district
   court’s finding that King had violated a condition of his supervised release by
   committing the law violations. See Jimison, 825 F.3d at 262.
          King contends that the district court erred in finding that he violated
   conditions of his supervised release by failing to pay the special assessment
   and fine imposed in the original criminal judgment. King asserts that his
   failure to pay was not willful. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672-73
   (1983); see also United States v. Payan, 992 F.2d 1387, 1396 (5th Cir. 1993).
   We do not reach this contention because any such error was harmless in light
   of the district court’s finding that King violated conditions of his supervised
   release by committing law violations. See United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d
   214, 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                             3