United States v. Christopher Harris
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12525
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Christopher J. Harris sold cocaine to an undercover officer; police executed a warrant and found cocaine and firearms on July 17, 2013. Harris pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- District court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), § 924(e), based on one prior felony assault and two prior felony drug-sale convictions, and imposed the 15‑year statutory minimum (180 months).
- At sentencing the court, sua sponte and without prior notice to probation, the government, or defense, announced a special condition: "no unprotected sex activities without probation office approval" during supervised release.
- One week later the court issued a written memorandum attempting to substitute a narrower written condition requiring Harris to use contraceptives unless religious scruples or his partner’s express rejection prevented use.
- Harris appealed both the ACCA enhancement and the special supervised‑release condition; the government defended only the written contraceptive condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recidivism-related fact (that prior drug convictions occurred on different occasions) must be submitted to a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt under Alleyne | Harris: Alleyne requires any fact that increases prescribed punishment be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, so the district court erred by making the "different occasions" finding | Government/District: Almendarez‑Torres creates a narrow exception for recidivism; prior‑offense timing is a recidivism fact and need not be submitted to a jury; Harris also admitted the facts | Affirmed ACCA enhancement: recidivism exception stands; Harris admitted the occasions; no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Whether the special condition barring "unprotected sex activities without probation office approval" (and the later written contraceptive mandate) is permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and the Constitution | Harris: condition is an abuse of discretion, lacks nexus to offense, overly broad, infringes fundamental rights | Government: written condition merely requires obeying the law and preventing sexual assault (defense focused on the written condition) | Vacated the oral special condition: court exceeded § 3583(d) authority; oral pronouncement controls over later written modification; condition was not reasonably related to statutory sentencing factors and was overbroad |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (rules that facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by a jury, but did not overrule recidivism exception)
- Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (recidivism is an exception to the jury‑trial requirement for facts that increase punishment)
- Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 (1936) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
- United States v. Smith, 972 F.2d 960 (8th Cir. 1992) (striking a supervised‑release condition attempting to regulate fathering of children as lacking required nexus)
- United States v. Foster, 514 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2008) (a written judgment cannot cure an illegal oral sentence entered at sentencing)
- United States v. Juan‑Manuel, 222 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2000) (authority for modifying judgment to delete improper supervised‑release condition)