762 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2014), 13-2994, United States v. Stanko
|Citation:||762 F.3d 826|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Rudolph George Stanko, Defendant - Appellant|
|Attorney:||For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Frederick D. Franklin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Nebraska, Omaha, NE. For Rudolph George Stanko, Defendant - Appellant: Roger Isaac Roots, Livingston, MT. Rudolph George Stanko, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, G...|
|Judge Panel:||Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BEAM and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||August 12, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Submitted: May 16, 2014.
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha.
As a condition of his supervised release, Rudolph George Stanko was required to complete a Post-Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) form given to him by his probation officer. The form instructed Stanko to respond, using a four-point scale ranging from " strongly agree" to " disagree," to questions that had little relevance to the offenses he had been convicted of,1 such as " [w]hen pressured by life's problems I have said 'the hell with it' and followed this up by using drugs or engaging in crime," and " I have justified selling drugs, burglarizing homes, or robbing banks by telling myself that if I didn't do it someone else would." Stanko refused to answer any of the form's 80 self-assessment questions, invoking his alleged Fifth and Ninth Amendment right to remain silent and asserting that " [t]hese questions [were] not questions for [his] benefit, but questions to dissect [his] personality with evidence to pull out answers for future Court proceedings and use these answers against me." In response, the probation office filed a petition to revoke Stanko's supervised release citing, among other things, that Stanko had failed to " answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer."
The district court2 found that Stanko's refusal to complete the PCRA violated a condition of his supervised release and sentenced him to seven days imprisonment with no term of supervised release to follow. The court rejected Stanko's Fifth Amendment argument, reasoning that Stanko could not rely on a blanket Fifth Amendment invocation to properly assert his privilege against...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP