United States v. Trevon Barcus
892 F.3d 228
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Trevon Barcus was convicted in Tennessee for attempted aggravated sexual battery with a victim under 13; he served prison time and is subject to Tennessee "community supervision for life" and SORNA registration.
- After release, Barcus removed an ankle monitor, fled, failed to register as required, and pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2250 (failure to register).
- The PSR classified Barcus as a Tier III sex offender (raising his Guidelines offense level) and added two criminal-history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) because he committed the instant offense while under Tennessee community supervision for life.
- The district court adopted the PSR, overruled Barcus's objections to the criminal-history points and certain special sex-offender supervised-release conditions (psychosexual evaluation, sex-offender treatment, polygraph), and sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment plus five years supervised release.
- On appeal, Barcus challenged: (1) Tier III classification, (2) the two criminal-history points for being under Tennessee community supervision for life, and (3) the reasonableness of the special sex-offender conditions.
- The Sixth Circuit held that the Tier III classification was plain error, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing; it affirmed the two-point criminal-history addition and the special supervised-release conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barcus) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Proper Tier classification under SORNA | Tennessee conviction is not comparable to Tier III because state statute lacks specific intent element required by federal definitions | Tennessee statute is effectively comparable; no realistic probability it has been applied without intent | Court: Tennessee aggravated sexual battery sweeps more broadly (objective "reasonably construed" standard) and is not comparable; Tier III classification was plain error (sentence vacated) |
| 2. § 4A1.1(d) two criminal-history points for committing offense while under "community supervision for life" | Argued applying the two-point increase categorically to Tennessee sex-offenders is unfair and not aligned with Guidelines' purpose | Tennessee "community supervision for life" has supervisory component like parole; comment n.4 supports treating it as a criminal-justice sentence | Court: Affirmed addition of two points—community supervision for life qualifies as a criminal-justice sentence under § 4A1.1(d) |
| 3. Reasonableness of special sex-offender supervised-release conditions | Argued psychosexual evaluation, sex-offender treatment, and polygraph are unnecessary/redundant given general mental-health treatment and constitute greater-than-necessary liberty deprivation | Conditions are reasonably related to the offense (failure to register as a sex-offender) and to defendant's history; district court properly balanced necessity and proportionality | Court: No abuse of discretion in imposing the special sex-offender conditions; affirmed |
| 4. Standard of review / forfeiture consequences | Barcus failed to object to Tier III classification below, so review is plain-error | Government relies on preserved aspects; urges deference to Guidelines application | Court: Applied plain-error review and found clear error as to Tier III classification; other claims reviewed under appropriate standards and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gardiner, 463 F.3d 445 (6th Cir.) (plain-error review of sentencing errors)
- United States v. Stock, 685 F.3d 621 (6th Cir.) (incorrect sex-offender classification can be plain error)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (Sup. Ct.) (categorical-approach comparison of state and generic offenses)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (Sup. Ct.) (limitations on comparing broader state statutes to narrower federal "generic" crimes)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct.) (plain-error doctrine framework)
- United States v. Schock, 862 F.3d 563 (6th Cir.) (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation)
- United States v. Childress, 874 F.3d 523 (6th Cir.) (standard and review for special supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Carter, 463 F.3d 526 (6th Cir.) (substantive reasonableness test for supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Brogdon, 503 F.3d 555 (6th Cir.) (upholding sex-offender conditions based on prior sexual offenses)
- United States v. DeJournett, 817 F.3d 479 (6th Cir.) (examining state supervision to determine applicability under Guidelines)