United States v. Doka
| Decision Date | 08 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | August Term 2019,No. 18-3311-cr,18-3311-cr |
| Citation | 955 F.3d 290 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Albi DOKA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Matthew Hellman, Assistant United States Attorney (Jordan Estes, Won S. Shin, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney, Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
Jeremiah Donovan, Law Offices of Jeremiah Donovan, Old Saybrook, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cabranes, Sack, Lohier, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Albi Doka ("Doka") appeals from a judgment of revocation of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge ) following three violations of supervised release. On appeal, Doka challenges the constitutionality of the revocation of his term of supervised release, the sufficiency of the evidence demonstrating the violations of his conditions of supervised release, and the reasonableness of his revocation sentence.
Our opinion today addresses only Doka’s constitutional challenge: whether judicial factfinding authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) remains constitutional as established by this Court’s well-settled precedent, despite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Haymond1 holding that judicial factfinding authorized by a different supervised-release provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause2 and the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial.3 We conclude that Haymond did not undermine, let alone overrule, our precedent on the validity of § 3583(e) and thus hold that judicial factfinding authorized under that statute remains lawful.
In a summary order filed simultaneously herewith, we decide Doka’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to the revocation of his term of supervised release and the challenge to the reasonableness of his revocation sentence.
In sum, the October 18, 2018 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
On September 8, 2015, pursuant to a written cooperation agreement with the Government, Doka pleaded guilty to three counts of a Superseding Information: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute oxycodone and cocaine; (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; and (3) false statements to the U.S. Pretrial Services Office. After pleading guilty, Doka remained out on bail. On February 5, 2016, however, Doka’s bail was revoked, and he was remanded to custody pending sentencing. On February 9, 2017, the District Court sentenced Doka principally to time served (392 days’ imprisonment), to be followed by three years of supervised release.
On October 16, 2017, the U.S. Probation Office filed a violation petition alleging that Doka had violated the conditions of his supervised release. The petition identified three specifications of alleged violations that occurred between May and October 2017: (1) committing the state crime of second-degree assault, in violation of New York Penal Law § 120.05 ; (2) committing the state crime of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, in violation of New York Penal Law § 220.16(1) ; and (3) using controlled substances.
On June 11, 2018, the District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the violations, where the Government presented evidence to establish that, among other things, Doka assaulted a police detective while fleeing a lawful stop, possessed more than 300 pills of oxycodone with the intent to sell them, and used oxycodone while on supervised release.
On August 14, 2018, the District Court issued a written decision concluding that the Government proved all three violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Then, on September 28, 2018, the District Court revoked Doka’s term of supervised release and sentenced Doka to forty-eight months’ imprisonment, to be followed by ten years of supervised release. The instant appeal followed.
The statute at issue in this case, 18 U.S C. § 3583(e)(3), authorizes a district court to "revoke a term of supervised release ... if the court ... finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release."4 The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard "requires proof that the defendant’s violation of supervision was more likely than not."5
For the first time, Doka argues on appeal that this statute is unconstitutional. Specifically, Doka contends that the District Court’s revocation of his term of supervised release pursuant to § 3583(e)(3) violates the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee that the charges against him be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. We review de novo questions of law, including questions of constitutional interpretation.6
As Doka acknowledges, we have held on multiple occasions that § 3583(e)(3) ’s authorization of judicial factfinding by a preponderance of the evidence is constitutional.7 We have stated, for example, that "[r]evocation proceedings are not deemed part of a criminal prosecution" and that, as a result, "defendants in such proceedings are not entitled to ‘the full panoply of rights’ that criminal defendants generally enjoy," including the constitutional right to have the Government held to a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to a jury trial.8 Relatedly, we have pointed out that "a violation of supervised release is not a separate basis for criminal punishment that requires a jury verdict and all that that entails."9 Rather, "[i]mposition of supervised release is authorized by the original conviction, and so too are the consequences of its violation."10
It is well settled then that, under the law of this Circuit,11 the Constitution permits judges to revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release after finding, under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, that the defendant violated his or her conditions of supervised release. Doka relies on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Haymond in support of his argument that his revocation pursuant to § 3583(e)(3) must now be regarded as unconstitutional and that our longstanding precedent on this subject is no longer valid. We disagree.
The Supreme Court held in Haymond that § 3583(k) is unconstitutional. Under that statute, "if a judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant on supervised release"—who is also required to register as a sex offender—"committed one of several enumerated offenses ... the judge must impose an additional prison term of at least five years and up to life without regard to the length of the prison term authorized for the defendant’s initial crime of conviction."12
The facts in Haymond were straightforward and typical of a revocation hearing: a trial judge, acting without a jury, found that it was more likely than not (i.e. , the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard) that a defendant had violated one or more conditions of supervised release.13 Ordinarily, once that determination is made, the judge must consider whether to revoke the term of supervised release and "impose a new prison term up to the maximum period of supervised release authorized by statute for the defendant’s original crime of conviction, subject to certain limits."14
Notably, however, the defendant’s situation in Haymond presented a circumstance that is not present in all revocations of supervised release—and certainly not present in the instant case. Haymond was originally convicted of possessing child pornography, an offense covered by § 3583(k)15 that carries a statutory maximum of ten years.16 Because the defendant in that case was a registered sex offender on supervised release, who in turn was charged with committing one of the offenses listed in § 3583(k), at the violation of supervised release proceedings the trial judge was "bound [by § 3583(k) ] to impose an additional prison term of at least five years" and up to life imprisonment.17
The Supreme Court held that the statute’s application of an additional five-year prison term violated the defendant’s rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Although a majority of five Justices concluded that the statute was unconstitutional, they were unable to agree on a single or consistent rationale. Justice Gorsuch, in a plurality opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan (hereafter, the "Gorsuch plurality"), offered one rationale for the Court’s holding. Justice Breyer, the author of a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, offered another.
According to the Gorsuch plurality, § 3583(k) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey18 and its progeny—particularly, under Alleyne v. United States .19 The Gorsuch plurality relied on this line of cases to explain that a fact that increases a mandatory minimum sentence authorized by statute must be found by a jury on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.20 The Gorsuch plurality concluded that § 3583(k) is constitutionally infirm because it "increased the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences" on the basis of facts found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence.21
By contrast, Justice Breyer’s separate opinion offered a narrower rationale. On the one hand, Justice Breyer agreed with the four dissenting Justices—which for convenience may be styled the "Alito plurality" 22 —that "the Apprendi line of cases," Alleyne included, should not be extended to the "supervised-release context."23 On the other hand, he agreed with Justice Gorsuch’s plurality holding that § 3583(k) is unconstitutional. Rather than relying on Apprendi and Alleyne , Justice Breyer explains that there are "three aspects of this provision" that are problematic when "considered in combination" because they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Peguero
...procedural mechanisms, is constitutional.7 See, e.g. , United States v. Diaz , 986 F.3d 202, 208–09 (2d Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Doka , 955 F.3d 290, 293 (2d Cir. 2020) ; Carthen , 681 F.3d at 99–100 ; Carlton , 442 F.3d at 807–10 ; United States v. McNeil , 415 F.3d 273, 276–77 (2d Ci......
-
United States v. Henderson
...not speculate as to whether, if we were free to reconsider Robinson , we would arrive at the same conclusion."); United States v. Doka , 955 F.3d 290, 298 (2d Cir. 2020) (on plain error review, holding that "[w]here, as here, the Supreme Court has not undermined[ ] our Court's clear precede......
-
United States v. Shakespeare
...generally Childs , 17 F.4th at 791-92 ; United States v. Henderson , 998 F.3d 1071, 1072, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Doka , 955 F.3d 290, 296 (2d Cir. 2020). Context, however, is key. In Salazar , as well as each of the other cases cited above, the question was whether the d......
-
United States v. Salazar
...it does not."), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2021 WL 161125 (Jan. 19, 2021) ; United States v. Doka , 955 F.3d 290, 296 (2d Cir. 2020) (" Haymond did not undermine our clear precedent on the constitutionality of § 3583(e)(3)."); United States v. Eagle Chas......