快活视频

 

United States v. Collins

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
  • Date Filed: 06-22-2012
  • Case #: 10-50344
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: District Judge Marbley for the Court; Circuit Judges Kleinfeld and M. Smith

To impose a lifetime term of supervised release, the government must prove that the 鈥渃ondition of supervised release involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to serve the goals of supervised release." The heightened burden of clear and convincing evidence does not apply.

Tim James Collins appealed his 60-month sentence and conviction for possession of child pornography. The district court misspoke when accepting Collins鈥檚 guilty plea, possibly referencing an earlier indictment. The district court initiated a hearing to correct the record and to ensure that Collins pled guilty to the correct indictment. The Ninth Circuit held that the acceptance of Collins鈥檚 guilty plea at the subsequent hearing was 鈥渘either plain error, nor structural error.鈥 Collins argued that his sentence, which included a lifetime term of supervised release, was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The Court concluded that Collins鈥檚 allegation that the district court 鈥渋nappropriately presumed the reasonableness of the [鈥 term of supervised release鈥 was meritless. Further, Collins requested that the Court apply a heightened 鈥渃lear and convincing鈥 evidentiary burden in determining whether to impose a lifetime term of supervised release. The Court declined to apply this standard, holding that such a heightened burden only applied in the context of offense level enhancements, not supervised release terms. However, the district court erred in failing to 鈥減rovide appropriate analysis and support for its imposed terms and conditions of supervised release.鈥 The Court also had 鈥済ood reason to suspect鈥 that the lifetime residency restrictions were substantively unreasonable. However, having found that the district court procedurally erred, the Court declined to rule on this issue. AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED in part.

Advanced Search


Back to Top