United States v. Martinez-Torres
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13422
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2008 Martinez‑Torres pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana; sentenced to 30 months and three years’ supervised release; later supervised‑release conditions were modified to require residence at an RRC.
- Probation filed a revocation petition after Martinez‑Torres failed to return to the RRC; the district court revoked supervised release and sentenced him to 2 months’ imprisonment and 2 years’ supervised release.
- The district court imposed seven special conditions, including: (1) prohibition on alcohol/intoxicants; (2) mandatory risk assessment, psychosexual evaluation, sex‑offender treatment, and clinical polygraph testing; and (3) a broad ban on viewing/possessing sexually explicit material (including legal adult pornography).
- Defense objected only to the sexually‑explicit‑material condition (arguing it barred legal materials); the other two challenged conditions were not objected to at sentencing.
- On appeal the government conceded plain error as to the alcohol and treatment/polygraph conditions; the court reviewed the pornography ban for abuse of discretion and found the record lacked the individualized findings required to justify a broad restriction on legal adult sexually explicit materials.
- The Tenth Circuit vacated all three challenged conditions and remanded for resentencing, explaining that the district court failed to provide a sufficient, individualized basis tying the pornography ban to statutory sentencing factors and liberty and First Amendment interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Alcohol/intoxicants ban as condition of supervised release | Government: condition is appropriate for supervision and safety (deferred to probation). | Martinez‑Torres: did not object below. | Govt conceded plain error; condition vacated and remanded. |
| 2. Mandatory psychosexual evaluation, sex‑offender treatment, and polygraph testing | Government: necessary given sex‑offender history. | Martinez‑Torres: did not object below. | Govt conceded plain error; condition vacated and remanded. |
| 3. Broad ban on viewing/possessing sexually explicit materials (including legal adult pornography) | Government/District Court: justified by defendant’s prior sex‑offense conviction and public protection concerns. | Martinez‑Torres: overbroad; restricts lawful adult materials and lacks individualized justification. | Vacated for abuse of discretion; district court failed to make individualized findings tying the ban to § 3583(d)/§ 3553(a) factors and to address First Amendment liberty interests; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bear, 769 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2014) (standards for reviewing special conditions of supervised release)
- United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain‑error review of pornography ban; not an obvious error given facts)
- United States v. Dougan, 684 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2012) (vacating sex‑offender conditions where remote conviction lacked nexus to current offense)
- United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (vacating broad pornography restriction for lack of individualized justification)
- United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2007) (vacating ban on sexually explicit materials where record did not show nexus or justify First Amendment intrusion)
- United States v. Hahn, 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2008) (upholding many sex‑offender conditions in different posture but noting need for objections and tailored findings)
- United States v. Perazza‑Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (rejecting automatic imposition of adult‑pornography bans for sex‑offense convictions)
- United States v. Kelly, 625 F.3d 516 (8th Cir. 2010) (requiring individualized inquiry before imposing restrictions on sexually oriented materials)