Court Opinion

ID: 9915072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 17:00:31.208493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:11.121497
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 23-1916
                      ___________________________

                           United States of America

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

Taquan Laquise Johnson, (originally named Taquan Laguise Johnson), also known
                                  as MooMoo

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                     ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                                 ____________

                        Submitted: November 13, 2023
                           Filed: January 4, 2024
                               [Unpublished]
                               ____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.
       Taquan Laquise Johnson appeals from the revocation of his supervised release,
arguing that the district court1 erred by allowing the probation officer to read from a
state court sentencing order during the revocation hearing. He claims that the hearsay
testimony violated his right to confront adverse witnesses under United States v. Bell,
785 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1986), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C).
We affirm.

       The U.S. Probation Office alleged that Johnson had violated the conditions of
his supervised release by committing another crime and by possessing a firearm.
During the revocation hearing, defense counsel stated that his client admitted the
violations, explaining that Johnson had pleaded guilty in state court to attempted
aggravated robbery and that he had been sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment,
with the imposition of an additional 120 months’ imprisonment suspended. Counsel
identified the state case number, the offense date, the sentence, the sentencing order,
and the date the sentencing order was filed in state court. Before imposing the
revocation sentence, the district court invited Johnson to make a statement.

       To defense counsel’s and the government’s surprise, Johnson decided that he
no longer wanted to admit the violations. The prosecutor thus called the probation
officer as a witness and handed him the sentencing order, from which he identified
the defendant’s name, the conviction, the offense and conviction dates, and the
sentence. Johnson did not object. Based on the probation officer’s testimony, the
court found that Johnson had been convicted of attempted aggravated robbery and
had been sentenced as set forth above. Because he had committed a crime and thus
violated the conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked his release
and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his
state term of imprisonment, with no further supervised release to follow.

      1
       The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

                                          -2-
       The district court did not plainly err in admitting the probation officer’s
recitation of information contained in a state court sentencing order. See United
States v. Burrage, 951 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The
government expected Johnson to admit the alleged violations of his conditions of
supervised release, which he did. When he withdrew his admissions before being
sentenced, the government was unexpectedly put to its burden of proof and thus
called the probation officer to testify. That testimony relied on the state sentencing
order to establish that Johnson had been convicted of and sentenced for attempted
aggravated robbery, which is a Grade A violation requiring revocation.2 Johnson did
not dispute the sentencing order’s reliability at revocation, nor does he challenge its
reliability on appeal. We hold that the district court was not required to sua sponte
disallow the testimony when doing so likely would have required a continuance and
when the testimony was based on a demonstrably reliable court order. See Bell, 785
F.2d at 643 (“[T]he court should assess the explanation the government offers of why
confrontation is undesirable or impractical” and consider “the reliability of the
evidence which the government offers in place of live testimony.”); United States v.
Martin, 382 F.3d 840, 845 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[W]here . . . the underlying facts have
been sufficiently developed, this court may itself perform the Bell analysis on
review.”); Burrage, 951 F.3d at 916 (district court did not plainly err by not
addressing a confrontation issue during the revocation hearing when defendant did
not object). Our decision in United States v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 784, 788–89 (8th Cir.
2013), does not compel a different conclusion.

      The judgment is affirmed. We grant the government’s unopposed motion to
supplement the record.
                      ______________________________

      2
        Johnson does not challenge that attempted aggravated robbery is a Grade A
violation that requires revocation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(1) (court shall revoke
supervised release upon a finding of a Grade A violation); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1)
(conduct constituting Grade A violation); Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-12-103 (elements of
aggravated robbery).
                                         -3-