United States v. Desrick Warren
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14866
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Warren pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute PCP, received 110 months custody and 3 years supervised release; supervised release began July 2011.
- Probation petition to revoke (Feb 2012) alleged: a positive marijuana urinalysis in Feb 2012 (which Warren admitted) and failure to attend drug counseling in Oct–Nov 2011; probation noted 11 of 19 urine tests were "invalid."
- Probation calculated violations as Grade C, Criminal History VI, advisory revocation range 8–14 months and statutory maximum 24 months.
- At the revocation hearing Warren pleaded true to the charged violations; the district judge discussed the invalid tests and expressed frustration with Warren’s conduct and refusal of treatment.
- The district court revoked supervised release and imposed the statutory maximum 24 months imprisonment with no additional supervised release; Warren appealed claiming procedural and substantive error.
Issues
| Issue | Warren's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court procedurally erred by considering uncharged/"invalid" urine tests without advance notice | Court relied on invalid tests without pre-sentencing notice; violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 and due process | Rule 32.1 does not require advance notice for all facts at revocation sentencing; Morrissey/Gagnon permit more informal, predictive sentencing; court relied on verified positive test and other conduct | No procedural error — no notice requirement and the invalid tests were not shown to be materially untrue or outcome-determinative |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable (24 months vs. 8–14 mo advisory range) | 24 months is excessive; court ignored §7B1.4 range and relied on improper considerations (e.g., assertions about choice vs. addiction, defendant’s character) | District court may exceed advisory revocation range up to statutory max based on case-specific factors; judge’s discretion and familiarity justify a harsher revocation sentence | No substantive error — deferential review; sentence not plainly unreasonable given defendant’s history and admitted violations |
| Whether reliance on materially untrue information violated due process | Court relied on materially erroneous facts (invalid tests) to increase sentence | Warren did not contest accuracy of invalid-test count and positive test formed basis for punishment; defendant failed to show reliance on materially untrue information | No due process violation — defendant failed to show the court relied on materially untrue info that affected the outcome |
| Scope of procedural protections at revocation sentencing | Revocation sentencing requires similar pre-hearing notice protections as original sentencing | Revocation proceedings are more informal and predictive; Rule 32.1 and Supreme Court precedent provide less formal notice requirements than original sentencing | Court affirmed that revocation sentencing need not mirror original-sentencing notice rules and allowed reliance on additional conduct without prior written notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. United States, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir.) (articulating "plainly unreasonable" two-step review for revocation sentences)
- Kippers v. United States, 685 F.3d 491 (5th Cir.) (procedural-error standards at revocation include reliance on clearly erroneous facts)
- Tobias v. United States, 662 F.2d 381 (5th Cir.) (sentences based on erroneous material information violate due process)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation due process framework; revocation process need not include full criminal-trial protections)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probation revocation due process guidance; informal but orderly hearings)
- Mathena v. United States, 23 F.3d 87 (5th Cir.) (no advance notice required when court imposes statutory-maximum revocation sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (deference to sentencing judge; appellate reversal requires substantive unreasonableness)
- Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) (original-sentencing due process: reliance on materially untrue assumptions invalidates sentence)