United States v. Benjamin Hart
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12846
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Benjamin One Deer Hart was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and sentenced to 50 months’ imprisonment (concurrent) plus three years supervised release.
- At trial, Hart's stepmother testified that the assault occurred shortly after Hart asked her for money and, when refused, later stabbed her nephew at her home.
- At sentencing Hart was ordered to pay $10 restitution, a $300 special assessment, contribute to drug-treatment costs, and he had an outstanding $185 fine from a prior offense; he also has a prior felony conviction for terroristic threats related to a money dispute.
- The district court imposed two contested special conditions of supervised release: (1) provide probation access to requested financial information (credit reports, bank/telephone bills), and (2) not incur new credit card charges or open new lines of credit without Probation Office approval.
- Hart objected to the financial conditions as unrelated to his offense and an unnecessary liberty deprivation; the district court overruled the objection. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hart preserved his objection to the financial conditions | Counsel’s statement noting objection "in light of the circumstances of the offense" preserved the challenge | Government contended counsel failed to clearly preserve, so plain-error review should apply | Court held the objection was adequately preserved and reviewed for abuse of discretion |
| Whether financial-information disclosure condition is authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) | Not related to offense; Hart’s crime was non-financial, so condition is not reasonably related and overly restrictive | Probation and district court argued it is authorized where restitution/assessments exist and financial monitoring aids compliance | Condition upheld as reasonably related given timing of offense, prior money-related conviction, and outstanding financial obligations |
| Whether prohibition on new credit without Probation approval is more liberty-restrictive than necessary | Condition unnecessarily restricts liberty because offense was not primarily financial | Condition functions as a monitoring device tied to restitution/assessments and deterring further criminal conduct | Upheld as a permissible, non-prohibitory monitoring measure under the circumstances |
| Whether district court abused discretion by imposing these special conditions without detailed findings | Hart argued lack of explicit findings makes condition unsupported | Court and Probation relied on record facts (request for money before assault, prior money-related conviction, outstanding obligations) | Court found the basis discernible from record and no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Deatherage, 682 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing special conditions of supervised release)
- United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2006) (plain-error vs. preserved objection discussion)
- United States v. Harris, 794 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2015) (§ 3583(d) relationship-to-offense framework)
- United States v. Springston, 650 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court discretion on special conditions)
- United States v. Schaefer, 675 F.3d 1122 (8th Cir. 2012) (conditioning need not include detailed findings if basis is discernible)
- United States v. Camp, 410 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding similar credit-monitoring conditions based on unpaid obligations)
- United States v. Campos, 816 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2016) (striking an unrelated expenditure restriction as insufficiently connected to correctional needs)
- United States v. Weiss, 328 F.3d 414 (8th Cir. 2003) (upholding credit restrictions where restitution and financial instability existed)
- United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2000) (credit restrictions within court’s discretion for large restitution obligations)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (examples of insufficiently specific sentencing objections)