United States v. Blake Childress
874 F.3d 523
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Blake Childress was convicted in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm (2012) and sentenced to 41 months plus three years supervised release; he later faced and was tried in state court for incest and ultimately pled to aggravated assault based on the same sexual conduct with his minor half-sister.
- The Probation Office sought two special-condition modifications to Childress’s supervised release: (1) no contact with any victim(s) of a sex offense committed by him (to which Childress did not object), and (2) a psychosexual assessment at his own expense (which he contested).
- At the modification hearing the government submitted the state appellate opinion, a victim interview, child services and prosecution reports, and state judgments describing repeated sexual acts with the minor half-sister; Childress objected that the psychosexual evaluation was unrelated to his federal offense and overly intrusive.
- The district court found the aggravated assault plea was based on the same sexually motivated conduct as the overturned incest conviction and, applying United States v. Carter, held the psychosexual evaluation related to Childress’s history and characteristics and to public protection and rehabilitation goals; it ordered both conditions.
- Childress appealed, arguing (1) the aggravated assault conviction was not a sexual offense and thus insufficient basis for the psychosexual condition, and (2) the evidence supporting the state conviction was unreliable/hearsay and therefore inadequate to justify the condition.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the psychosexual assessment based on the defendant’s history and the evidentiary record presented at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Childress) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a psychosexual evaluation may be imposed as a special condition of supervised release | Court may impose condition based on defendant’s history and characteristics to protect public and provide treatment; evidence showed sexual misconduct with a minor | Psychosexual evaluation is unrelated to federal gun conviction and aggravated assault is not a sexual offense | Affirmed: condition permissible under §3553(a)(1)/§3583(d)(1) because conduct was sexual in nature |
| Whether a state conviction for aggravated assault (non-titled sexual offense) can support sex-related supervised-release conditions | The aggravated assault plea was based on the same sexual conduct as the incest charge, so it supports the condition | Plea elements and record unclear—conviction might not reflect sexual conduct or might be procedurally defective | Affirmed: label of the offense is not dispositive; court may look to whether the offense was committed in a sexual manner (Carter) |
| Whether the underlying evidence was too unreliable/hearsay to justify the condition | District court relied on multiple documents and the defendant did not contest reliability at hearing | State appellate comments and trial context show evidence was not overwhelming; evidence is hearsay and procedurally limited | Affirmed: sentencing proceedings permit consideration of such evidence; no contradictory evidence was offered and district court acted within discretion |
| Whether the condition imposes an excessive liberty deprivation or requires least-restrictive means | Condition tailored for assessment; intrusive tests (e.g., plethysmography) would require further court order | The evaluation is intrusive and not the least restrictive means; mental-health treatment would be less intrusive | Affirmed: defendant did not press a substantial §3583(d)(2) challenge on appeal; district court reasonably found assessment necessary for risk determination |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carter, 463 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2006) (title of offense not dispositive; court must determine whether offense was committed in a sexual manner when imposing sex-related supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Perkins, [citation="207 F. App'x 559"] (6th Cir. 2006) (court may impose sex-offender treatment based on defendant’s broader history and characteristics even where instant conviction is not a sex offense)
- United States v. Prochner, 417 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2005) (upholds sex-offender evaluation where non-sex conviction coupled with evidence of sexual interest/contacts justified treatment for public protection)
- United States v. Bortels, 962 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1992) (conditions of supervised release must be reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection)
- United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2007) (potential for penile plethysmography within a condition is not ripe for review unless actually ordered)
- United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholds sex-offender conditions based on older convictions and later charges under appropriate circumstances)