United States v. Christopher Ronald Aime
701 F. App'x 925
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Aime pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport stolen motor vehicles and began a three-year term of supervised release after completing imprisonment.
- One month into release he was arrested outside the judicial district at an auto mall with tools and latex gloves; state charges included giving a false name, loitering and prowling, and driving on a suspended license.
- Probation filed a revocation petition alleging (1) the Florida charges (false name, loitering/prowling, suspended license) and leaving the district without permission, and (2) later, three additional violations (another unauthorized departure, failure to notify probation of being questioned, and failure to answer probation inquiries).
- At the revocation hearing Aime admitted to some violations (including leaving the district) but not the loitering/prowling charge; the government declined to present evidence on loitering/prowling because other admitted charges sufficed to find a violation.
- At sentencing the government asked for the statutory maximum and relied on the facts surrounding Aime’s arrest (location and items found) — facts tied to the loitering/prowling charge it had not pursued; the court allowed the government to present that evidence at sentencing.
- The district court found the additional violations by a preponderance, considered the § 3553(a) factors (including the arrest circumstances as preparatory conduct related to the original offense), and sentenced Aime to 15 months imprisonment plus 15 months supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing evidence at sentencing about conduct the government declined to prove at revocation violated due process and the Sixth Amendment confrontation right | Aime: government bait-and-switched by abandoning loitering/prowling at revocation then using related facts at sentencing without giving opportunity to confront witnesses | Government: facts were properly used at sentencing to inform § 3553(a) factors; confrontation right does not apply at sentencing | Court: Affirmed — confrontation right does not apply at sentencing; evidence was for sentencing only and did not violate due process |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for constitutional challenges to sentence)
- United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110 (11th Cir. 1994) (revocation hearings require minimal due process, including confrontation rights)
- United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005) (evidentiary rules differ at sentencing)
- United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir. 2005) (no confrontation right at sentencing)
- United States v. Smith, 741 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2013) (sentencing courts may consider uncharged or acquitted conduct)