United States v. Deon Daye
4 F.4th 698
8th Cir.2021Background
- In 2017 Daye pled guilty to making false statements before a grand jury and was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release.
- Daye began supervised release June 7, 2019; it was revoked five months later for failures to test, noncompliance with mental-health treatment, and an assault, resulting in five months' imprisonment and a two-year supervised-release term starting March 6, 2020.
- On April 22, 2020 police responded to an altercation between Daye and his ex-girlfriend, "Sarah Bates," who had facial injuries; body-worn camera captured Bates’ contemporaneous account describing choking and punches.
- At the June 4, 2020 revocation hearing Bates had reconciled with Daye and recanted parts of her earlier statement; Daye denied the assault.
- The district court found Bates’s in-court testimony not credible, credited her statements on the scene (and corroborating jail calls), and concluded the government proved the supervised-release violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Daye was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on revocation; he completed that term and appealed only the substantive reasonableness of that sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed and held the sentence challenge moot because Daye had already served the term and did not challenge the new supervised-release term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly revoked supervised release based on the assault allegation | Daye: he did not assault Bates; Bates recanted; hearing testimony supports no violation | Government/District Court: bodycam statements, injury, and jail calls corroborate the violation; preponderance established | Revocation affirmed; credibility findings not clearly erroneous; preponderance met |
| Whether the 12-month revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable | Daye: the 12-month term is substantively unreasonable | Government: appellants challenge to imprisonment is moot because term already served; only supervised-release term remains contested | Appeal as to imprisonment is moot; substantive-sentence challenge dismissed and judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Staten, 990 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 2021) (revocation requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2014) (revocation review standard; abuse of discretion and clear-error for factual findings)
- United States v. Finley, 612 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2010) (definition and application of clear-error review)
- United States v. Ralph, 480 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2007) (credibility determinations at supervised-release hearings are virtually unreviewable on appeal)
- Owen v. United States, 930 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2019) (appeal of revocation sentence is moot if defendant has completed imprisonment and does not challenge supervised-release term)