109 F.4th 120
2d Cir.2024Background
- Steve Rosado pled guilty to attempted enticement of a minor and attempted receipt of child pornography, after prior convictions involving minors.
- At sentencing, the district court orally imposed several conditions of supervised release.
- After sentencing, the written judgment included seven additional, more restrictive conditions that had not been orally pronounced.
- Rosado appealed, arguing that these unpronounced additions violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a), which requires the defendant to be present when conditions are imposed.
- The district court in the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.) was the court of original jurisdiction; this is a decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Rosado's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unpronounced conditions in a written judgment are valid | The seven extra conditions should be removed because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing | The written judgment reflects conditions mentioned in the PSR and standard treatment terms | The court ruled that only orally pronounced conditions are valid; additions must be struck |
| Whether reference to 'standard terms' includes specific new restrictions | General references to standard conditions do not notify defendant of significant new restrictions | That citing 'standard terms and conditions' is sufficient to alert defendant of all program requirements | The court found that specific, burdensome restrictions require explicit oral pronouncement |
| Remedy for unpronounced conditions | The unannounced conditions should be struck from the written judgment | The government asked for remand to allow the court to orally pronounce the conditions | Court adhered to standard practice, ordering the conditions to be stricken |
| Clarity and notice at sentencing | Ambiguity in imposing supervised release terms erodes the defendant’s rights | PSR and paraphrasing suffices for notice | Oral pronouncement in open court is necessary for clarity and objection opportunities |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rosario, 386 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2004) (oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over written judgment if there is a conflict)
- United States v. Washington, 904 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2018) (supervised release conditions must be pronounced in defendant's presence; oral controls over written)
- United States v. Sims, 92 F.4th 115 (2d Cir. 2024) (sentencing must occur in open court; oral imposition required for special conditions)
- United States v. Jacques, 321 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2003) (unpronounced supervised release conditions must be struck from judgment)