Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; August 23, 2019; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Andrew Ralph Haymond, whose prior conviction for possession of child pornography led to a sentence that included supervised release with specific restrictions. After the Supreme Court ruled 18 U.S.C. 3583(k) unconstitutional, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case for resentencing. The district court resentenced Haymond to time served on February 14, 2018. The Supreme Court declined to resolve disputes over remedial arguments but directed the Tenth Circuit to consider the government's arguments regarding remedies and issue preservation.
Haymond was initially convicted on January 21, 2010, faced a potential sentence of zero to ten years, and was ultimately sentenced to thirty-eight months in prison plus ten years of supervised release. During a surprise probation search on October 22, 2015, officers seized Haymond's electronic devices and found evidence suggesting violations of his supervised release conditions, including possession of child pornography and failure to disclose internet devices. The district court subsequently determined that Haymond had indeed committed five violations of his supervised release conditions by a preponderance of the evidence.
A district court has discretion in responding to a defendant's violation of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which allows for a maximum two-year imprisonment for a Class C felony. However, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) mandates a revocation and imposes a minimum of five years to life imprisonment for certain violations. In the case of Haymond, the district court imposed a five-year sentence following his revocation. Haymond appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his possession of child pornography and claiming that § 3583(k) was unconstitutional as it violated due process and jury trial rights. The government countered that the evidence supported the district court's findings and that the sentencing process complied with constitutional standards.
The appellate court upheld the finding of knowing possession but declared the mandatory minimum of § 3583(k) unconstitutional, asserting it infringed upon the sentencing judge's discretion and punished based on unproven conduct. The court vacated Haymond's sentence, directing the district court to resentence him under § 3583(e)(3), disregarding the mandatory provisions of § 3583(k). Following the appellate mandate, the district court resentenced Haymond to time served, as he had exceeded the two-year limit by that time. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case.
The Supreme Court found that the application of 3583(k) to Mr. Haymond violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court noted that Haymond's initial sentence of thirty-eight months and a ten-year supervised release was based on a jury's verdict, which indicated a lawful prison term of zero to ten years under 2252(b)(2). However, Haymond later received a five-year prison term for violating supervised release, determined by a judge without a jury and based on a preponderance of evidence, which constituted "new punishment" that exceeded the jury's verdict. This was deemed unconstitutional as it increased the legally permissible sentencing range, referencing Alleyne v. United States.
A concurring Justice also agreed that the judicial factfinding under 3583(k) was unconstitutional. The government argued that the Supreme Court's ruling was overly broad, suggesting that a jury could be empaneled to find facts necessary for imposing new punishment under a reasonable doubt standard, which could then trigger the mandatory minimum under 3583(k). However, the Supreme Court did not consider this argument, as the government had not raised it in prior proceedings.
Upon returning the case for further examination, the government conceded it did not preserve the jury trial remedy and stated it would not seek a jury trial, affirming that Haymond's time-served sentence would remain in effect. Consequently, both parties agreed the issue of the jury trial remedy was abandoned, and the government moved to dismiss the case, which was granted due to the lack of preservation and the mootness of the issue concerning Haymond's sentence.
The appeal is dismissed. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), the supervised release term for offenses under section 2252 is at least 5 years or life. The district court found that Haymond only possessed thirteen images of child pornography from his phone's gallery cache, not the additional forty-six images from other parts of the phone. The court determined that the evidence did not support a jury's conviction beyond a reasonable doubt for the possession of those additional images. Section 3583(k) mandates the revocation of supervised release if a defendant, required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, commits certain offenses with a potential imprisonment of more than 1 year, imposing a minimum of 5 years imprisonment. The government admitted it did not preserve the argument regarding any constitutional issues in § 3583(k) that could be resolved by a jury. Additionally, Haymond was given an extra two years of supervised release. The court declined the government's proposal to vacate the district court's September 2016 judgment and remand for re-imposition of the February 2018 order to reduce Haymond's term of imprisonment to time served.
