Court Opinion

ID: 9400719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 00:00:42.01704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.145142
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60950        Document: 00516780013             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023

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

                                     ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                     June 8, 2023
                                       No. 21-60950                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Detrick Doyle,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Mississippi
                              USDC No. 4:15-CR-151-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Southwick and Oldham, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Detrick Doyle challenges the revocation of his supervised release,
   arguing that the district court violated a number of his statutory and
   constitutional rights during four informal show-cause hearings. But because
   the exhibits and testimony presented at the formal revocation hearing
   provided sufficient evidence from which the district court could conclude

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60950     Document: 00516780013           Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                    No. 21-60950

   Doyle violated the conditions of his supervision, any errors during the show-
   cause hearings were harmless. We therefore affirm.
                                         I
          Doyle pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the theft of firearms from
   a federally licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and
   924(i)(1). The district court sentenced him to five years of probation and
   ordered him to pay $13,940.11 in restitution, with interest.
          During Doyle’s second year on probation, the district court
   conducted a show-cause hearing that was attended by Doyle, Doyle’s
   mother, an Assistant United States Attorney, and two probation officers.
   The court noted that Doyle had not made a restitution payment in several
   months and that he was $1,300 in arrears. The court warned Doyle that his
   probation officer could move to revoke Doyle’s probation if he failed to
   comply with the conditions of his probation and the court’s orders.
          Two months after that show-cause hearing, the probation officer
   moved to revoke Doyle’s probation. The district court granted the motion
   and sentenced Doyle to nine months of imprisonment and three years of
   supervised release. Ten months later, after Doyle had served that term of
   imprisonment, the district court revoked Doyle’s supervised release and
   sentenced him to an additional nine months of imprisonment and eighteen
   months of supervised release.      Doyle did not appeal these revocation
   judgments.
          Over the following two years, the district court conducted three more
   show-cause hearings, all of which were attended by Doyle, two probation
   officers, and an Assistant United States Attorney.
          At the first of these hearings, the district court suggested that Doyle
   reside at a halfway house and “earn a good income” in order to pay

                                         2
Case: 21-60950        Document: 00516780013        Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                    No. 21-60950

   restitution before his supervision ended. The court asked Doyle if he would
   be “willing to modify the terms” of his supervised release and report to a
   halfway house.       Doyle responded, “Anything to keep from getting
   incarcerated, Your Honor.” A week later, Doyle’s probation officer moved
   to modify Doyle’s conditions of supervision, alleging that Doyle had (1) used
   a controlled substance and (2) failed to provide financial documentation.
   The petition proposed that Doyle reside at a halfway house for six months
   and pay 70% of his income toward restitution. Doyle waived his rights to a
   hearing and to assistance of counsel and agreed to the proposed modification.
   The district court granted the petition.
          At the second of these show-cause hearings, the court questioned
   Doyle about his employment while at the halfway house. The district court
   ordered Doyle to continue contributing 70% of his income toward restitution
   while he was living at the halfway house; submit monthly cashflow
   statements to probation; and appear for an additional show-cause hearing
   unless he complied with the district court’s orders and the conditions of his
   supervision. Doyle finished his time at the halfway house in March 2021, and
   he informed his probation officer that he could pay $300 per month toward
   his restitution.
          At the last of these show-cause hearings, the district court again
   focused on Doyle’s restitution obligation, explaining that he was $450 in
   arrears. The court ordered Doyle to pay the $450 and continue to pay $300
   per month toward restitution.
          Two months after the last show-cause hearing, Doyle’s probation
   officer moved to revoke Doyle’s supervised release. The amended petition
   for revocation alleged four violations: (1) use of a controlled substance,
   (2) failure to provide financial documentation, (3) failure to pay restitution,
   and (4) failure to follow instructions from the probation officer.

                                          3
Case: 21-60950         Document: 00516780013               Page: 4       Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                           No. 21-60950

           The district court held a formal revocation hearing and appointed
   counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2). Doyle
   denied the alleged violations. The Government called as witnesses two of
   Doyle’s probation officers, who testified about Doyle’s positive urinalysis
   report, his failure to complete and submit the required financial
   documentation, his failure to pay restitution, and his failure to follow the
   officers’ instructions. The Government introduced Doyle’s incomplete
   cashflow statements, as well as Doyle’s positive urinalysis report, which was
   signed by Doyle and stated, “I admit use of a controlled substance as
   indicated by the above-reported urine test result.”
           After hearing the testimony and evidence, the district court revoked
   Doyle’s supervised release and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment
   and twelve months of supervised release. Doyle timely appealed the order of
   revocation.
                                                 II
           “We review a decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion, but
   we review issues of constitutional law de novo.” 1 “A district court may
   revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the
   evidence that a condition of release has been violated.” 2 We apply the
   harmless-error rule to revocation judgments, disregarding “[a]ny error,

           _____________________
           1
             United States v. Locke, 482 F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir. 2007) (first citing United States
   v. King, 990 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1993); and then citing United States v. Grandlund, 71
   F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995)); see also United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220, 231-32 (5th
   Cir. 2009) (“While revocation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, the legal and
   constitutional bases of the challenges thereto are reviewed de novo.”).
           2
             United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C.
   § 3583(e)(3) (providing that release may be revoked if the court finds that “the defendant
   violated a condition of supervised release” (emphasis added)).

                                                 4
Case: 21-60950           Document: 00516780013                Page: 5   Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                            No. 21-60950

   defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights.” 3
   “Where there is an adequate basis for the district court’s discretionary action
   of revoking probation, the reviewing court need not decide a claim of error as
   to other grounds that had been advanced as a cause for revocation.” 4
           First, Doyle argues that the show-cause hearings violated his statutory
   and constitutional rights. Regardless of what occurred at the show-cause
   hearings, the testimony and evidence presented at the formal revocation
   hearing justified the district court’s ultimate revocation judgment. The proof
   of Doyle’s failure to submit financial documentation, the positive urinalysis
   report, and the probation officers’ testimony together provide sufficient
   evidence from which the district court could conclude that Doyle violated the
   conditions of his supervised release. “[E]ven if there were deficiencies in the
   show-cause hearings, such errors were harmless with respect to the court’s
   ultimate decision to revoke [Doyle’s] supervised release.” 5
           Second, Doyle raises procedural and substantive challenges to the
   modifications made to the conditions of his supervision before this revocation
   judgment. Doyle did not appeal those modifications, and they have since
   lapsed. “[T]here is nothing for us to remedy;” 6 we decline to address these
   challenges.

           _____________________
           3
             Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); see United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260, 262 (5th
   Cir. 2016); United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 332 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v.
   English, 400 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2005).
           4
             United States v. Turner, 741 F.2d 696, 698 (5th Cir. 1984); see also McCormick, 54
   F.3d at 219 (extending Turner to review of supervised release revocation).
           5
            See United States v. Sensing, No. 21-60662, 2023 WL 167201, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan.
   12, 2023) (unpublished) (per curiam).
           6
               See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998).

                                                  5
Case: 21-60950      Document: 00516780013             Page: 6   Date Filed: 06/08/2023

                                       No. 21-60950

          Last, Doyle argues that the district court erred by failing to rule on his
   request to waive restitution interest. Because Doyle’s request to waive
   interest was part of his motion to dismiss the amended petition for
   revocation, the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss also denied
   that request. The district court did not fail to rule on his request.
                                   *        *         *
          For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order
   revoking Doyle’s supervised release.

                                            6