United States v. LeCompte
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15542
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2003 LeCompte pled guilty to multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and was required to register as a sex offender.
- In 2011 he pled guilty in federal court to violating SORNA by failing to register after interstate travel and was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. The PSR and sentencing court imposed a “minor prohibition” special condition forbidding association with persons under 18 except in the presence of a probation‑approved responsible adult.
- In August 2014 a probation officer found LeCompte sitting outside with adults and his then‑girlfriend’s three‑year‑old granddaughter (no approved adult present). A polygraph and followup disclosures indicated two additional brief child contacts. Probation filed a petition to revoke supervised release.
- LeCompte moved to dismiss, asserting an as‑applied constitutional and statutory challenge to the minor‑prohibition condition; the district court heard the challenge, denied the motion, revoked supervised release, and imposed six sex‑offender conditions and a six‑month prison term.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit held the district court erred in its as‑applied analysis: the court’s rationale relied on superficial similarities to the 2003 offense, failed to make the individualized assessment § 3583(d) requires (including consideration of remoteness and lack of subsequent misconduct), and did not address whether the condition imposed no greater deprivation of liberty than necessary. The Tenth Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | LeCompte's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could hear an as‑applied challenge to a supervised‑release condition at a revocation proceeding | LeCompte: He may raise an as‑applied challenge as a defense to the revocation petition even though he did not appeal the original sentencing condition | Government: Failure to appeal the original condition precludes district court jurisdiction to entertain the challenge now | Court: District court may entertain an as‑applied challenge at revocation; review permitted (citing circuit precedent allowing as‑applied review) |
| Whether the minor‑prohibition condition was reasonably related to the offense and LeCompte’s history under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1) | LeCompte: Condition, as applied to sitting with a girlfriend’s 3‑year‑old in presence of other adults, is not reasonably related to his prior sex offense (which was remote and involved different conduct) | Government: The condition reasonably relates because prior offense involved a minor female and potential exploitation via adult relationships | Court: District court’s analysis insufficient—court relied on superficial similarities and failed to make the individualized assessment required; remanded for further consideration |
| Whether application of the condition involved no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary under § 3583(d)(2) | LeCompte: The condition as applied imposed an excessive liberty deprivation (stifles familial/religious association) and was not justified by deterrence, protection, or rehabilitation needs | Government: Application is necessary for public protection and deterrence given prior conviction | Court: District court did not analyze § 3583(d)(2); remand required to evaluate whether the application is narrowly tailored and no greater than necessary |
| Whether remoteness and absence of subsequent sexual misconduct affect the reasonableness of the condition | LeCompte: Prior sex offense was remote and there is no record of sexual offenses involving minors since then—these facts undermine the nexus to sex‑offender conditions | Government: (Implicit) Prior sex offense still provides basis for restrictions connected to protecting minors | Court: Remoteness and lack of intervening misconduct are important; district court failed to address them and must do so on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bailey, 259 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2001) (district court authority to revoke supervised release)
- United States v. Maloney, 513 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2008) (revocation authority under § 3583)
- United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2009) (as‑applied challenges to supervised‑release conditions reviewed in revocation context)
- United States v. Locke, 482 F.3d 764 (5th Cir. 2007) (consideration of as‑applied challenge to Internet restriction condition)
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (vacating a sweeping sex‑offender condition where prior sex offense was remote and no subsequent incidents supported the restriction)
- United States v. Dougan, 684 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2012) (older sex offense may be too remote to justify sex‑offender conditions)
- United States v. Rhodes, 552 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2009) (ripeness concerns for speculative future applications of conditions)
- United States v. Schoenborn, 4 F.3d 1424 (7th Cir. 1993) (rejecting unripe challenges based on hypothetical applications)
- United States v. Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing review when probation permission is arbitrarily denied)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 53 (2000) (supervised release serves rehabilitative purposes distinct from incarceration)