U.S. v. Gilbert, 92-5352
| Decision Date | 22 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-5352,92-5352 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mattie Sue GILBERT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
James E. Arehart, Asst. U.S. Atty., Karen K. Caldwell, U.S. Atty., Kenneth Taylor, Asst. U.S. Atty. (briefed and argued), Lexington, KY, Jacquelyn A. Jess, Asst. U.S. Atty., Covington, KY, for U.S.
Jill Hall Rose (argued and briefed), Lexington, KY, for Mattie Sue Gilbert.
Before KENNEDY and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and BECKWITH, District Judge. *
Mattie Sue Gilbert pled guilty on December 13, 1990 to one count of mail theft. The District Court sentenced her to ten months imprisonment, to be followed by two years supervised release. She got out early, and began her supervised release time under the auspices of the London, Kentucky office of the United States Probation Office. As a convict on supervised release, Gilbert had to observe standard release conditions, in short, that she lead a productive and wholesome life, remain in the area, stay out of trouble, and report regularly to her probation officer.
After a few months, it became evident to her probation officer, Diane Campbell, that Gilbert was not being very conscientious in keeping up her end of the bargain. Officer Campbell sent a letter to the sentencing judge, listing Gilbert's various transgressions as procedure dictated; she sent a second letter after hearing of additional violations. The judge then convened a release revocation hearing. At the hearing, Gilbert, assisted by her lawyer, denied or explained each of the violations Officer Campbell asserted; the Government lawyer questioned her as well, and the judge asked a few questions. The judge then orally recited his findings of fact, in which he concluded that Gilbert had indeed committed some, but not all, of the violations of which she had been accused. He ordered Gilbert sent back to prison for another seven months, to be followed by an additional two year period of supervised release.
Mrs. Gilbert argues that the District Court committed reversible error in ordering her supervised release revoked without setting forth, in its written order, the evidence upon which the revocation was based and the specific reasons for the revocation. She claims that the findings delivered from the bench, while transcribed in the court record, do not constitute the "written statement" the Supreme Court has specified as a minimal procedural requirement in a revocation hearing.
It is true that the case Mrs. Gilbert cites, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), in prescribing the process that was due a parolee before he could be re-jailed, required "a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking parole." Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604. However, it must be remembered that the appellant in Morrissey had been returned to prison by a State parole board on the advice of the parole officer without any hearing. The Supreme Court held that at a minimum, the Constitution required a hearing before a parolee's (admittedly limited) liberty could be taken away by the State, but the Court stressed that it had "no thought to create an inflexible structure for parole revocation procedures." Id. at 490, 92 S.Ct. at 2604. Of significant concern to the Morrissey Court was the "absence of an adequate record" which would enable judicial review of the reasons for parole revocation. Id.
More recently, the Supreme Court explained that its requiring a written statement
helps to ensure accurate factfinding with respect to any alleged violation and provides an adequate basis for review to determine if the decision rests on permissible grounds supported by the evidence.
Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 613-14, 105 S.Ct. 2254, 2259, 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985). In Romano, as here, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCoo v. State
...hearing appear in the trial record on appeal': "`See, e.g., United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412 (11th Cir.1994); United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Barnhart, 980 F.2d 219 (3d Cir.1992); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992); United Stat......
-
Trice v. State
...hearing appear in the trial record on appeal": "See, e.g., United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412 (11th Cir.1994); United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Barnhart, 980 F.2d 219 (3d Cir.1992); United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992); United State......
-
U.S. v. Blackshear
...in holding that the transcribed oral findings of a district court can satisfy the requirement of a written statement. United States v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993). See also United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. Barth, 899 F.2d 199 (2d Cir.1990), cer......
-
Interest of Thomas W., In re
...at the revocation hearing appear in the trial record on appeal. See, e.g., U.S. v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412 (11th Cir.1994); U.S. v. Gilbert, 990 F.2d 916 (6th Cir.1993); U.S. v. Barnhart, 980 F.2d 219 (3d Cir.1992); U.S. v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992); U.S. v. Barth, 899 F.2d 199 (2d ......