Court Opinion

ID: 2964059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:50.776284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.717355
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1816

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  ARCHIE M. WHALEN,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                _____________________

               Mark  A.  Perry, by  Appointment  of  the Court,  with  whom
               _______________
          Archer, Perry & Jordan, P.A., was on brief for appellant.
          ____________________________
               F. Mark Terison, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
               _______________
          Jay  P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and James L. McCarthy,
          _________________                              _________________
          Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    April 25, 1996
                                 ____________________

                    TORRUELLA,  Chief Judge.  Appellant-defendant Archie M.
                    TORRUELLA,  Chief Judge.
                                ___________

          Whalen ("appellant"  or "Archie Whalen") appeals  from a judgment

          revoking  his supervised release.  He  contends that the district

          court  violated his due process rights in failing to make written

          findings  of  the  evidence  on  which  it   relied,  abused  its

          discretion in  deciding that his  release should be  revoked, and

          erred in not dismissing  the government's petition for revocation

          due  to  the failure  to provide  a  prompt hearing  to determine

          probable cause  to detain him  pending hearing on  the revocation

          charge.  We affirm the district court decision.

                                    I.  BACKGROUND
                                    I.  BACKGROUND

                    Archie  Whalen was  charged  with assaulting  his wife,

          Christina ("Christina Whalen"), by  state authorities on June 24,

          1995, in  Sullivan, Maine.  At the time of the incident that gave

          rise to the  assault charge, Archie Whalen was in  the midst of a

          two-year  term  of  supervised released  imposed  on  him by  the

          federal district court in Maine on December 14, 1994.  During the

          resulting revocation hearing before the district court, Christina

          Whalen testified  that her husband inflicted bruises  on her left

          leg when he grabbed her and dragged her up a flight of  stairs to

          their apartment.   The district  court also heard  testimony from

          Hancock  County Patrol  Sergeant Patrick  Kane ("Sergeant  Kane")

          that he had seen her bruises two days after the incident alleged.

          However,  Sergeant Kane  testified that  the bruises were  on her

          left  shin while his  report stated that  they were  on her right

          shin.   Christina Whalen  also testified that  she had previously

                                         -2-

          lied  regarding Archie  Whalen in  other proceedings  while under

          oath.    There was  also evidence  to  the effect  that Christina

          Whalen had,  on  a prior  occasion,  bruised her  own legs  in  a

          similar manner  to get her husband's  supervised release revoked.

          Furthermore, while the district court heard testimony from Archie

          Whalen  denying that he had injured  his wife, it also heard from

          Heidi Clement ("Clement"), a  co-worker of Christina Whalen's, to

          whom he stated that he "was wrong to have hurt her."

                    The district  court acknowledged that  Christina Whalen

          "played fast and loose with the truth" and that there was also "a

          lot   of  problems   with  the   testimony"  of   Archie  Whalen.

          Ultimately,  however,  the  court  determined  that  the   record

          established by a preponderance of the evidence that Archie Whalen

          violated  the terms of  his supervised release  by committing the

          state crime of assault against his wife.

                                   II.  DISCUSSION
                                   II.  DISCUSSION

                             A.  The Due Process Argument
                             A.  The Due Process Argument

                    Archie Whalen's  first  argument is  that the  district

          court  violated his due process rights in failing to make written

          findings of the evidence on which it relied.  He  cites Morrissey
                                                                  _________

          v.  Brewer, 408 U.S. 471  (1972), which states  that "the minimum
              ______

          requirements  of due  process," in  the context  of  a revocation

          hearing,  include "a written  statement by the  factfinders as to

          the evidence relied on  and reasons for revoking parole."  Id. at
                                                                     ___

          489;  see also Gagnon  v.   Scarpelli, 411  U.S. 778,  786 (1973)
                ________ ______     ___________

          (holding  that the  Morrissey rule  applies equally  to probation
                              _________

                                         -3-

          revocations).   Archie Whalen  faults as inadequate  the district

          court's statements  that it revoked  his release term  because he

          committed a state crime by assaulting his wife, and that it found

          the facts to be as set forth in the Report of Revocation prepared

          by Whalen's probation officer.

                    Archie Whalen  argues that  the  district court  should

          have  stated  in writing  the evidence  upon  which it  relied in

          reaching its conclusion.  However, he never sought such a written

          statement  directly from  the  district court.    By making  this

          argument  for the first time  on appeal, Whalen  has deprived the

          district court of  the opportunity  to consider and  rule on  the

          issue,  and  has thus  deprived  us  of  a ruling  which  we  can

          effectively  review.   See  United  States  v. Pilgrim  Marketing
                                 ___  ______________     __________________

          Corp., 944 F.2d 14, 21  (1st Cir. 1991); United States v.  Curzi,
          _____                                    _____________     _____

          867 F.2d  36, 44 (1st Cir.  1989).  "If the  objection now raised

          had been formulated below  there would have been  opportunity for

          the  court  to  consider  it  and  rule  accordingly."    Pilgrim
                                                                    _______

          Marketing Corp., 944 F.2d at 21.
          _______________

                    As a result, we consider appellant's argument under the

          "plain error" standard.  See United States v. Hunnewell, 891 F.2d
                                   ___ _____________    _________

          955, 956  (1st Cir.  1989).   This standard  requires  us to  ask

          whether  fundamental  fairness  was  undermined,  and  whether  a

          miscarriage  of  justice  has  occurred.   See  United  States v.
                                                     ___  ______________

          McMahon, 938  F.2d 1501, 1510  (1st Cir. 1991).   Here we  do not
          _______

          find either of these concerns implicated.

                                         -4-

                    Moreover, even if Whalen had properly preserved his due

          process  argument  for  appeal,  it would  fail  on  the  merits.

          Virtually  every court to have considered the issue has held that

          "oral  findings,  if recorded  or  transcribed,  can satisfy  the

          requirements  of Morrissey  when those  findings create  a record
                           _________

          sufficiently  complete to  advise the  parties and  the reviewing

          court of the reasons for the revocation of supervised release and

          the evidence the decision  maker relied upon."  United  States v.
                                                          ______________

          Copeland, 20 F.3d 412,  414 (11th Cir. 1994) (stating  that "[n]o
          ________

          circuit has  directly held otherwise," although  some courts have

          stated that United States  v. Lacey, 648 F.2d 441, 445  (5th Cir.
                      _____________     _____

          1981), holds that written statements are required notwithstanding

          the availability of  a transcript of the court's findings, "based

          on a misinterpretation of Lacey"); United States  v. Gilbert, 990
                                    _____    _____________     _______

          F.2d 916, 917 (6th  Cir. 1993); see United States  v. Copley, 978
                                          ___ _____________     ______

          F.2d 829, 831  (4th Cir. 1992); United States v.  Barth, 899 F.2d
                                          _____________     _____

          199, 201-02 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Yancey, 827 F.2d 83,
                                      _____________    ______

          89  (7th Cir.  1987), cert.  denied, 485  U.S.  967 (1988).   The
                                _____________

          transcript of the district court's ruling stated that it was

                      persuaded  by  a  preponderance   of  the
                      evidence that the  defendant did in  fact
                      on  or  about  June   24,  intentionally,
                      knowingly, and recklessly cause injury or
                      offensive physical [contact] to Christina
                      Whalen  in violation  of the  Maine state
                      law.   And  so I  am going  to make  that
                      finding  of a violation of the supervised
                      release provisions.

                    Furthermore,  the district judge  stated on  the record

          that  he had  reviewed  all of  the  exhibits introduced  at  the

                                         -5-

          revocation  hearing.  He framed  the dispositive issue  as one of

          weighing the credibility of  Christina against Archie Whalen, and

          acknowledged  that both  witnesses had  problems in  that regard.

          The  court  concluded   that  the  government  had  proved  by  a

          preponderance of the evidence that Whalen had assaulted his wife,

          in  violation of  state  law,  and  hence  in  violation  of  the

          conditions  of  his  supervised  release.    Additionally,  in  a

          separate written Memorandum of  Sentencing Judgment, the district

          court expressly stated, as  to its factual findings: "I  find the

          facts as  set out  in the Report  of Revocation [prepared  by the

          probation officer]."   That report  in turn set  forth fully  the

          factual  allegations   concerning  the  alleged   assault.    The

          Memorandum  also reiterates the district court's conclusions that

          "the  defendant violated  the  special  condition  of  supervised

          release  that  he  not  commit  any  new  crimes"  and  that  the

          government had met its  burden of proving that the  defendant had

          assaulted Christina  Whalen.  In the  circumstances, the district

          court provided "fair notice  to the defendant of the  reasons for

          the revocation . . . [and] an adequate record from which to build

          an appeal."   Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 490.  There was no violation
                        _________

          of Whalen's due process rights.

                        B.  Merits of the Revocation Decision
                        B.  Merits of the Revocation Decision

                    We briefly review the burden  of proof and standard  of

          review attending a  supervised release revocation proceeding  and

          appeal therefrom.   At the district  court level, the  government

          has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that

                                         -6-

          at least  one of  the  conditions of  the defendant's  supervised

          release was violated.    United States v. Portalla, 985 F.2d 621,
                                   _____________    ________

          622 (1st  Cir. 1993).  Then,  if the district court  finds that a

          violation occurred,  it has  discretion to  revoke or modify  the

          defendant's supervised release (except for a violation  involving

          firearms  or  controlled   substance  offenses,  in   which  case

          revocation  is mandatory).   See  18 U.S.C.    3583(e), (g).   On
                                       ___

          appeal,  the  district  court's  decision  to  revoke  supervised

          release based on its finding of a violation is reviewed  only for

          abuse of discretion.   United States v. Morin, 889  F.2d 328, 331
                                 _____________    _____

          (1st Cir. 1989) (revocation decision "will not be reversed absent

          a  clear showing  of an  abuse of  discretion"); see  also United
                                                           _________ ______

          States v. Gallo, 20 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 1994).  And, as in other
          ______    _____

          contexts  where a district  court has discretion  to take certain

          action based  on its  findings of  fact,  the court's  subsidiary

          factfinding as to whether or not a violation occurred is reviewed

          for clear error.  Cf.  United States v. Winter, 70 F.3d  655, 659
                            ___  _____________    ______

          (1st  Cir. 1995)  (district court's  contempt order  reviewed for

          abuse  of  discretion,  underlying  factual  findings  for  clear

          error); United States  v. Mart nez-Molina, 64 F.3d  719, 732 (1st
                  _____________     _______________

          Cir.  1995) (trial  court's  denial of  motion  to withdraw  plea

          reviewed for abuse of discretion, subsidiary findings of fact for

          clear error).

                    Whalen  argues  that  the  district  court  abused  its

          discretion  in  revoking  his  supervised release,  and  that  it

          clearly erred in relying on Christina Whalen's testimony -- which

                                         -7-

          the  court itself  characterized as problematic  -- to  find that

          Whalen  violated the  conditions of  his release.   Whatever  the

          problems associated with Christina Whalen's  testimony, we reject

          appellant's argument  that the district court  erred in crediting

          it  over  the  testimony  of  Archie Whalen.    It  is  within  a

          factfinder's  discretion  to   credit  portions  of   a  witness'

          testimony  even  though it  finds  other portions  dubious.   See
                                                                        ___

          Wytrwal v.  Saco School  Bd., 70  F.3d 165,  171 (1st  Cir. 1995)
          _______     ________________

          (upholding  a district  court's decision  to credit  only certain

          portions  of a  witness'  testimony, despite  finding that  other

          portions were fabrications); NLRB v. Izzi, 395 F.2d 241, 243 (1st
                                       ____    ____

          Cir.  1968).   Such  credibility  determinations  are within  the

          unique role of the  factfinder, see Flanders & Medeiros,  Inc. v.
                                          ___ __________________________

          Begosian, 65  F.3d 198, 204 n.4 (1st Cir. 1995), and we are loath
          ________

          to  upset, particularly  in  a domestic  violence situation,  the

          district court's findings regarding  credibility, based on a cold

          record,  see, e.g., United States  v. Bartelho, 71  F.3d 436, 440
                   ___  ____  _____________     ________

          (taking into account, in reviewing finding of probable cause, the

          particularities   of  domestic  abuse  situations  in  justifying

          discounting of alleged victim's  denials of abuse); United States
                                                              _____________

          v.  Henry, 48  F.3d 1282,  1284-85 (same).   See  generally Alana
              _____                                    ______________

          Bowman,   A  Matter   of  Justice:   Overcoming  Juror   Bias  in
                    _______________________________________________________

          Prosecutions of Batterers Through Expert Witness Testimony of the
          _________________________________________________________________

          Common Experiences of Battered Women, 2 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women's
          ____________________________________

          Stud. 219, 245 (1992) (noting that  "minimizing" and "denying the

          violence"  are "very  common  behavioral patterns  among battered

                                         -8-

          women").  Taking these  factors into account, in addition  to the

          corroboration  of   Christina   Whalen's  statements   by   other

          witnesses, we  conclude that the  district court did  not clearly

          err  in finding that Archie  Whalen assaulted Christina Whalen as

          alleged by the  government, and that the court did  not abuse its

          discretion in revoking Whalen's supervised release.

                                         -9-

                           C.  The Probable Cause Argument
                           C.  The Probable Cause Argument

                    Appellant also  contends that the district  court erred

          by failing to hold  a probable cause hearing pursuant  to Federal

          Rule  of Criminal  Procedure 32.1  (providing, in  relevant part,

          that  a  person  held in  custody  for  an  alleged violation  of

          supervised release  conditions is entitled to  a "prompt hearing"

          to determine probable cause to detain the person for a revocation

          hearing,  and "[i]f  probable cause  is found  not to  exist, the

          proceeding shall be dismissed").  His argument is unavailing.

                    Whalen was arrested by  federal authorities on June 30,

          1995.   The  government then  promptly moved  for his  detention,

          pending  a hearing  on  the revocation  matter.   Whalen appeared

          before a  federal magistrate  judge on  July 5,  1995.  The  sole

          issue  before the magistrate  judge was whether  Whalen should be

          detained.   At this  preliminary hearing, the  government offered

          the  testimony   of  Whalen's  federal  probation   officer,  who

          described the  alleged assault on Christina  Whalen and testified

          as  to  information  he  had  obtained  through  interviews  with

          Christina Whalen,  her former husband, her  friend Heidi Clement,

          and another friend.  The  probation officer was cross-examined by

          Whalen's  attorney.    Based  on the  testimony  and  information

          presented, the magistrate judge ordered Whalen detained.

                    To the  extent that  the hearing before  the magistrate

          judge  was not sufficient to satisfy Rule 32.1,1 Whalen should be
                              
          ____________________

          1   A Rule 32.1 hearing may be held before a magistrate judge, if
          the district  court provides the magistrate  judge with authority
          to  do  so.   See  Fed. R.  Crim.  P. 32.1(a);  United  States v.
                        ___                               ______________

                                         -10-

          deemed to have waived his rights to any additional hearing on the

          specific  question  of  probable  cause.   The  magistrate  judge

          specifically  stated on the record that the only issue before him

          on  July  5 was  whether Whalen  should  be detained  pending the

          revocation hearing.  Whalen made no objection and did not request

          a separate determination of probable cause at any time before the

          revocation hearing itself.  In these  circumstances, we find that

          Whalen  waived any right to a hearing designated specifically for

          the  purpose  of assessing  probable  cause.   Furthermore,  even

          ignoring  the waiver, Whalen has made no showing that he suffered

          any  cognizable  prejudice from  the  lack  of a  probable  cause

          hearing specifically  designated as such.   Cf. United  States v.
                                                      ___ ______________

          Wickham,  618 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1979) (for defendant to succeed
          _______

          in making a "promptness" challenge to a revocation proceeding, he

          must  show  that  "the  delay . . .  prejudicially  affected  the

          [defendant's]  ability to  contest  revocation").   The  district

          court did not err in refusing to dismiss the revocation petition.

                                   III.  CONCLUSION
                                   III.  CONCLUSION

                    Although we realize that district judges are overworked

          and pressed for time, we urge as much detail as possible in their

          rulings revoking supervised release, consistent with the dictates

          of Morrissey.  In  this case, however, we find that  Whalen's due
             _________

          process rights were not violated, that the district court did not

          abuse its discretion in revoking Whalen's supervised release, and

          that there was no cognizable violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1.
                              
          ____________________

          Williams, 919 F.2d 266, 270 (5th Cir. 1990).
          ________

                                         -11-

                    As  a  result of  the  foregoing, the  judgment  of the

          district court is affirmed.
                            affirmed
                            ________

                                         -12-