United States v. Scott Sperling
699 F. App'x 636
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sperling, on supervised release, was found to have possessed or accessed with intent to view child pornography images.
- The district court revoked his supervised release and imposed five years’ additional imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k).
- The Government bore the burden to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Sperling appealed, arguing (among other things) that his sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the factual findings for clear error and the Sixth Amendment claim under plain error review because Sperling did not raise it below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in finding Sperling possessed or accessed child pornography with intent to view (warranting revocation) | Sperling contended the evidence was insufficient to prove possession or intent | Government argued the evidence met the preponderance standard required in revocation proceedings | Court held the factual findings were not clearly erroneous; evidence met the preponderance standard and revocation was proper |
| Whether sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial | Sperling argued the five-year revocation sentence required jury findings under the Sixth Amendment | Government argued Sixth Amendment does not apply to supervised release revocation; defendant forfeited the claim so plain-error review applies | Court held no clear or obvious Sixth Amendment error; Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent exclude jury requirement in revocation proceedings; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (revocation proceedings are not part of criminal prosecution; full criminal-trial rights do not apply)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (postrevocation penalties are attributable to the original conviction)
- United States v. Spangle, 626 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2010) (Sixth Amendment does not apply to supervised release proceedings)
- United States v. Gavilanes-Ocaranza, 772 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2014) (supervised release revocation and additional prison time do not implicate jury-trial right)
- United States v. Chi Mak, 683 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review applies when defendant failed to raise sentencing constitutional claims below)