United States v. Derek Hines ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-3187
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Derek Hines
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
    ____________
    Submitted: September 25, 2018
    Filed: December 14, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Derek G. Hines pled guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm and using meth
    and marijuana, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1), 922(g)(3), and 924(a)(2). The
    district court1 sentenced him to 63 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised
    release. He appeals one special condition of release. Having jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , this court affirms.
    Hines challenges the special condition of release requiring him to participate
    in “an evaluation for anger management and/or domestic violence.” This court
    “review[s] special conditions for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hart, 
    829 F.3d 606
    , 608 (8th Cir. 2016). A district court has “wide discretion in imposing
    supervised release conditions.” United States v. Durham, 
    618 F.3d 921
    , 933 (8th Cir.
    2010). This court will reverse “when the sentencing court fails to consider a relevant
    and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or
    considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing
    those factors.” United States v. Walters, 
    643 F.3d 1077
    , 1079 (8th Cir. 2011)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Before imposing mental health treatment, the court “must have reason to
    believe the defendant needs such treatment.” United States v. Wiedower, 
    634 F.3d 490
    , 494 (8th Cir. 2011). The district court imposed the probation-recommended
    condition based on Hines’s “history of domestic violence,” including convictions for
    criminal mischief and assault in 2002. Relying on United States v. Kent, Hines argues
    the fifteen-year-old convictions do not support requiring treatment. See Kent, 
    209 F.3d 1073
    , 1076-78 (8th Cir. 2000). In Kent, this court invalidated a special
    condition of release requiring the defendant undergo psychological counseling based
    on a thirteen-year-old allegation of spousal abuse. 
    Id.
    Kent is distinguishable. There, the defendant had no criminal convictions for
    abuse, there was no evidence of mental health problems, and his spouse testified he
    had not been physically abusive for 13 years. 
    Id.
     In fact, the government conceded
    1
    The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Iowa.
    -2-
    “that the special condition of mental health treatment is unrelated to the nature of
    Kent’s offenses.” 
    Id. at 1076
    . This court found treatment was not “necessary to
    effectuate the goals of Congress and the Commission.” 
    Id. at 1078
    . Here, however,
    the Presentence Investigation Report documents a history of violent altercations, a
    conviction for assault, and recent mental health diagnoses and issues, including
    “mood swings and violent rages.” Based on this, the special condition of release was
    reasonably related to Hines’s “history and characteristics” and the need to “protect
    the public from future crimes.” See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    Hines also believes the court erred in relying on the government’s sentencing
    exhibit 2 (a document alleging Hines was a victim of domestic abuse) to show his
    history of domestic violence. Imposing the special condition, the court said Hines
    “definitely has had [a] history of domestic violence as revealed in the presentence
    investigation report and in Government Exhibits 1 and 2.” However, the court later
    clarified this statement, noting that “the point is, he is involved in domestic situations,
    both as the aggressor and allegedly as the victim. And I make no findings one way
    or the other as to who did what to whom, but it’s well documented that that is in his
    history.” This clarification shows the court was aware of Hines’s history and had
    fully considered the record.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the condition. United
    States v. Lincoln, 
    876 F.3d 1137
    , 1139-40 (8th Cir. 2017) (upholding a similar
    condition based on an over twenty-year-old sexual assault conviction, coupled with
    a continued presence of risk factors and a lack of prior treatment); United States v.
    Moore, 
    860 F.3d 1076
    , 1078-79 (8th Cir. 2017) (upholding a similar condition based
    on a ten-year-old domestic violence conviction).
    ********
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-3187

Filed Date: 12/14/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/14/2018