United States v. Joseph Poignant

Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 1 of 16
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-12987
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:03-cr-14068-DLG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH POIGNANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 28, 2019)
Before MARCUS, GRANT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
HULL, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Joseph Poignant appeals the revocation of his supervised release,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). On appeal, Poignant argues that the district court
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 2 of 16
had insufficient evidence that he failed “to participate” in a sex offender treatment
program and thereby abused its discretion in revoking his supervised release. After
review and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. There was sufficient
evidence to support the district court’s findings that in several ways Poignant had
failed to participate in his sex offender treatment program and Poignant has shown
no clear error in the district court’s findings. Further, given our deferential review,
we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking Poignant’s
supervised release.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Conviction and Supervised Release
In 2003, a federal grand jury indicted Poignant with one count of using a
computer to persuade, induce, entice, and coerce a minor to engage in sexual
activity, and attempting to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). In 2004,
Poignant pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement.
The district court sentenced Poignant to 60 months’ imprisonment, followed
by 10 years of supervised release. The district court imposed the standard
conditions of supervision, as well as the special conditions that Poignant: (1) not
possess or use a computer that contains an internal modem and/or possess an
external modem without the prior approval of his probation officer, (2) participate
in a sex offender treatment program to include psychological testing and polygraph
2
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 3 of 16
examination, and (3) not possess or produce visual depictions of minors or adults
engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Poignant filed a direct appeal but he subsequently moved to dismiss his
appeal with prejudice, which this Court granted.
B. Prior Revocations of Supervised Release
Poignant’s first term of supervised release began in 2008. In 2011,
Poignant’s supervised release was revoked because (1) he possessed or used a
computer with internet access, as he and his wife had accessed “swinger dating
sites” via the internet and had sent their photos to other couples on the sites, and
(2) he was discharged from his sex offender treatment program for not reporting
this activity.
In the first revocation order, the district court sentenced Poignant to seven
months’ imprisonment, followed by seven years of supervised release. The district
court ordered that all provisions of Poignant’s original judgment remain in full
force and effect. Poignant did not appeal this first revocation order, and Poignant
was later released from prison.
Again in 2016, Poignant’s supervised release was revoked because (1) he
possessed an unauthorized tablet computer with internet access, (2) he used his cell
phone to produce visual depictions of adults engaged in sexually explicit conduct,
and (3) he failed to answer truthfully all inquiries by his probation officer.
3
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 4 of 16
In this second revocation order, the district court sentenced Poignant to 8
months’ imprisonment and 20 years of supervised release. The district court
ordered that all special conditions of supervised release imposed on Poignant in
2004 and 2011 remain in full force and effect. Poignant appealed the district
court’s second revocation of his supervised release, arguing that the district court
abused its discretion in imposing the condition that he refrain from viewing,
possessing, or producing visual depictions of adults engaged in sexually explicit
conduct. This Court affirmed.
C. Instant Petition for Revocation
Poignant’s supervised release commenced in September 2016. In April
2018, Poignant’s probation officer filed the instant petition for revocation of
supervised release. The petition, executed on April 25, 2018, alleged that Poignant
had violated a special condition of his supervised release by “failing to participate
in a sex offender treatment program.” The petition expressly stated that (1) on or
about April 23, 2018, Poignant was unsuccessfully discharged from the sex
offender treatment program he had been attending, and (2) that the discharge was
“evidenced by the letter of unsuccessful discharge from treatment dated April 23,
2018.”
4
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 5 of 16
D. Magistrate Judge’s Evidentiary Hearing
Because Defendant Poignant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
revoke his supervised release, we detail what happened at the evidentiary hearing
before the magistrate judge.
Dr. Holly Goller, Poignant’s therapist for his sex offender treatment
program, testified about Poignant’s treatment and behavior. Dr. Goller works at
the Clinical and Forensic Institute as a licensed psychologist for the Responsibility,
Effort, Awareness, Self-Criticism, and Honesty (“REACH”) program. In
September 2016, Dr. Goller became Poignant’s full-time therapist and saw him
twice a week for group therapy and twice a month for individual sessions. As part
of her individualized therapy, Dr. Goller and her clients created treatment goals at
the beginning of each year. Poignant’s treatment goals focused on addressing his
urge control, anger management, and cognitive distortion issues, and managing his
risk factors to prevent him from engaging in his offense cycle.
Poignant was also placed in more restrictive and intensive therapy involving
an “Intensive Therapy Program” (“ITP”) contract. Poignant’s updated ITP
contract in May 2017 included that he would attend two group sessions every
week, attend two individual sessions every month, present exercises or
assignments at group sessions each week, avoid beaches and bars, avoid the
internet and adult and child pornography, and avoid swing clubs, nightclubs, adult
5
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 6 of 16
theaters, and places that sell pornography or lingerie. Poignant also agreed to
manage his anger during group sessions by employing a three-part strategy to calm
down when he felt overwhelmed or angry.
At a group therapy session on April 16, 2018, Poignant became angry after
another group member had finished presenting. Specifically, Poignant raised his
hand and told the group that he wanted to give his presentation, but was frustrated
because there was not enough time for him to present. Dr. Goller told Poignant
that there was enough time for him to present what he wanted, but Poignant
escalated. Poignant’s tone increased, his speech rate quickened, his face reddened,
his stare intensified, and he did not respond to re-direction. Dr. Goller and the
other group members asked Poignant why he was becoming angry, and they
attempted to utilize the three-step strategy to calm him down. Poignant then said
that he did not have a presentation ready and continued to escalate.
When Poignant failed to respond to Dr. Goller and use his anger
management skills, Dr. Goller determined that it was counter-therapeutic for
Poignant to remain in the group session and asked him to leave. Dr. Goller
estimated that she tried to implement the three-step strategy for over 10 to 15
minutes. As Poignant was leaving, he said “this is fucking bullshit” and mumbled,
“fuck this.” Dr. Goller stated that she felt that Poignant was verbally aggressive
toward her when he used swear words.
6
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 7 of 16
Dr. Goller testified that program participants were instructed both in the
program handbook and at orientation that they were not to be disrespectful and that
they may be asked to leave if they could not control their anger. Participants were
also told that a violation of their ITP contracts could result in them being
discharged from the program. Additionally, participants were instructed not to
loiter on the property after their therapy sessions ended. After being asked to leave
the session, Poignant did not leave, but stayed in his car and called his probation
officer. Dr. Goller approached his car and asked him to leave. Poignant ignored
her at first, but left after she told him that she would call the police if he did not
leave. Poignant typically attended the following group therapy session after the
first session ended but he was not allowed to attend the second session that day due
to his behavior.
Dr. Goller was aware that April 2018 was the second anniversary of
Poignant’s mother’s suicide, but Poignant did not mention it when she asked him
why he was angry and escalating during the group session.
Dr. Goller testified that the decision to discharge Poignant from the
treatment program was based on his behavior up until that point, not just his
outburst on the day he was asked to leave the group session. Dr. Goller stated that
Poignant’s discharge was based on him continuously engaging in risky behaviors,
7
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 8 of 16
putting himself in risky situations, potentially starting to engage in his offense
cycle, and not responding to re-direction and ignoring the program’s rules.
Specifically, Dr. Goller testified Poignant had been showing poor
decision-making abilities and had started to engage in his offense cycle by placing
himself in risky environments that gave him access to individuals that he identified
as his desired victims. Poignant had told his probation officer that he was in
compliance with his ITP contract, but told Dr. Goller that he had been taking rides
along the beach in violation of his ITP contract.
A session between Dr. Goller, Poignant, and his probation officer in January
2018 revealed that Poignant told different stories to them concerning a computer
that his girlfriend left at his house overnight. Poignant told Dr. Goller that his
girlfriend left the computer, but he did not know the password and never had
access to it. Poignant told his probation officer that he knew her password because
he helped her set up a hotspot. He did not disclose whether he had used that
computer to view pornography.
After Poignant was asked to leave the April 16 group session, he was
administered a polygraph examination on April 22, 2018. His polygraph showed
deception when he was asked whether he had viewed any pornographic pictures or
videos since his last polygraph. Dr. Goller noted that Poignant had shown
8
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 9 of 16
deception on previous polygraphs, but he had not shown deception relating to
having illegal contact with minors or any other illegal activity.
Dr. Goller testified that Poignant was not participating in the program
because of (1) his failure to answer truthfully to his probation officer and to Dr.
Goller, including about his use of or access to his girlfriend’s computer, (2) his
inability to change his behavior and stay out of settings that triggered offense
conduct, and (3) his failure to follow the three-pronged strategy for anger
management. 1
Poignant did not testify at the evidentiary hearing. After hearing argument,
the magistrate judge took the matter under advisement.
E. Magistrate Judge’s Report
After the evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge issued an eight-page
report and recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the district court find
that Poignant failed to participate in his sex offender treatment program and, thus,
violated a condition of his supervised release. In the Report, the magistrate judge
first noted that Poignant knew that failing to follow the requirements of the sex
1
At the evidentiary hearing, defense counsel argued that Poignant was being discharged
from the program primarily due to his outburst at the group session. Defense counsel stated: “I
know he’s got a bad history as a probationer and frankly, I believe that’s why we’re here. I think
if he had a clean record, they would not have thrown him out. Maybe they would not have filed
a violation. But to violate this man, the way I read that letter, he is being violated mostly for the
outburst at group.” (emphasis added). However, as noted above, Dr. Goller gave several
additional reasons for Poignant’s discharge.
9
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 10 of 16
offender treatment program could send him back to prison, as he previously
violated this condition when he was discharged from the program for failing to be
honest about his internet activity. The magistrate judge recognized that Poignant’s
counsel claimed that Poignant’s outburst on April 16, 2018, was explainable
because it was the second anniversary of his mother’s suicide. However, the
magistrate judge found that Poignant’s disrespectful conduct on April 16 was not
the sole reason he was discharged from the program. Rather, the outburst was the
last in a series of problems with Poignant’s participation in the program.
In the Report, the magistrate judge also emphasized that Dr. Goller and
Poignant’s probation officer had discovered that Poignant was untruthful about his
internet access, and there were discrepancies about whether Poignant was
complying with his ITP contract or going to places that put him at risk of
reoffending. The magistrate judge also noted that Poignant had failed a polygraph
examination. The magistrate judge recounted how Poignant was advised about the
need to be respectful to others and provided a plan for dealing with his anger.
In the Report, the magistrate judge also found that participation meant that
Poignant was required to comply with the rules of his sex offender treatment
program, which prohibited him from engaging in activities that could lead to
relapse, from being untruthful or deceptive to his therapist and others, and from
being disrespectful during therapy sessions. Thus, the magistrate judge further
10
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 11 of 16
found that Poignant failed to comply with these rules and failed to participate in
sex offender treatment. Based on this, the magistrate judge found that the
government had met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
Poignant had violated a condition of his supervised release.
F. District Court’s Final Revocation Hearing
At a final revocation hearing, the district court adopted the Report with a
few modifications.2 The district court stated that it had reviewed the April 23,
2018, discharge letter and would include the letter in the record, but it never did.
Nonetheless, the district court read aloud a portion of the April 23 discharge letter,
with slight alterations:
Defendant Poignant was immediately discharged from the [REACH]
Program due to his failure to comply with treatment. On September
26th of 2016, he was placed on an [ITP] contract to address his
manipulative behavior. Throughout his tenure at the [REACH]
Program, the defendant has repeatedly displayed issues with
noncompliance, that is poor emotional regulation, becoming verbally
aggressive towards the treatment provider, not coming prepared with
weekly assignments to mention a few of the items. Additionally, the
repeated issues with deception on the polygraph examination, and as I
said, most recent being April 22nd of 2018, also demonstrated his
problem with inappropriate behavior.
2
The district court corrected errors in Paragraph 7 of the Report which stated that Dr.
Goller testified that Poignant began exhibiting deceptive and risky behaviors in January 2017
(but should have said January 2018) and failed a polygraph in April 2017 (but should have said
April 2018).
11
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 12 of 16
The district court also stated that its review of the magistrate judge’s evidentiary
hearing clearly showed that Poignant failed to participate in a sex offender
program for all of the reasons stated above.
The district court stated that the violation alleged in the petition—failing to
participate in a sex offender treatment program—was unclear and the petition
should have specified precisely what Poignant did in order to not comply with the
program. However, once the court read the discharge letter, it became apparent
that Poignant had violated a condition of his supervised release by failing to
properly participate in the sex offender treatment program. The district court
reiterated that “[i]f this [petition] did not make reference to the discharge letter,
then I would agree with [Poignant’s counsel’s position]; but if you take the
[petition] and you look at the letter which is referenced in the [petition], then it
became—and frankly, not until then it became apparent to me that the violation
was proved by a preponderance of the evidence.”
As to Poignant’s violation, the district court found that Poignant continued
to go to areas that were risky for him, his polygraph results suggested that he was
not being truthful, and he blew up at the group session, all of which showed that he
was not successfully participating in the program and culminated in his discharge
from the program.
12
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 13 of 16
The district court told Poignant’s counsel that he considered counsel’s
position very carefully, but in looking at the totality of the case and the discharge
letter, the court was satisfied that Poignant violated a condition of his supervised
release. The district court sentenced Poignant to 10 months’ imprisonment and 20
years of supervised release.
When the government filed its brief in this Court, the government filed a
sealed document containing the April 23, 2018, discharge letter and an e-mail
exchange between the government and Poignant’s trial counsel.
II. DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the discharge letter dated April 23, 2018, is not in the
record, and while the government filed it here under seal, it has not moved to
supplement the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (“The following items
constitute the record on appeal: (1) the original papers and exhibits filed in the
district court; (2) the transcript of proceedings, if any; and (3) a certified copy of
the docket entries prepared by the district clerk.”). On appeal, Poignant argues that
the discharge letter was not in evidence when the district court relied on it and this
Court should not consider the discharge letter as part of the record on appeal.
It is not necessary to supplement the record with the discharge letter, as we
can affirm without the discharge letter itself. Although the district court did not
include the discharge letter in the record, as it stated it would, the district court did
13
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 14 of 16
read a large portion of the discharge letter’s contents into the record at the final
revocation hearing. At the final revocation hearing, there was no objection to the
district court’s reading from the discharge letter. Further, Dr. Goller testified at
length as to the multiple reasons why Poignant had failed to adhere to his ITP
contract and to participate in the sex offender treatment program.
A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if the court
finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of
supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The preponderance of the evidence
standard “simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is
more probable than its nonexistence.” United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325,
1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review for abuse of
discretion a district court’s finding that a defendant violated a condition of his
supervised release. United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th Cir. 1994).
We are bound by the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous. United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir. 1993).
Poignant has not shown any clear error in the district court’s findings of fact
that in various ways Poignant had failed to participate in a sex offender treatment
program. See id. Poignant was discharged from his sex offender treatment
program because he failed to comply with several of the program’s rules.
Although Poignant argues that he did not fail to participate in his sex offender
14
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 15 of 16
treatment program because he regularly attended therapy sessions, inherent in his
participation was his compliance with the program’s rules. Noncompliance with
the rules of his sex offender treatment program and with his ITP contract does not
constitute participation within the meaning of the condition of his supervised
release.
As part of Poignant’s sex offender treatment program, he agreed in his ITP
contract to avoid risky areas like beaches and bars, avoid adult or child
pornography, and employ a three-step strategy to control his anger. Poignant was
warned that failing to follow his ITP contract could result in his discharge from the
treatment program.
Despite that warning, Poignant was not truthful with Dr. Goller and his
probation officer regarding his compliance with his ITP contract. Poignant told his
probation officer that he was in compliance with his ITP contract, but told Dr.
Goller that he had been taking rides along the beach in violation of his ITP
contract, which placed him in risky places and situations that could potentially lead
him to reoffending. Poignant also gave differing stories to Dr. Goller and his
probation officer about his access to his girlfriend’s computer. Also, Poignant
showed deception when he was asked whether he had viewed any adult
pornography in his April 2018 polygraph examination.
15
Case: 18-12987 Date Filed: 03/28/2019 Page: 16 of 16
Further, Poignant became angry and disrespectful during a group therapy
session on April 16, 2018, when he failed to use his three-part strategy and
anger-management skills to calm down, and instead escalated and became verbally
aggressive. Although Poignant was not discharged from his sex offender treatment
program until after that group session, his behavior at that session was not the sole
reason why he was discharged from the program. It should be acknowledged, as it
was below, that the group therapy session fell on the second anniversary of
Poignant’s mother’s suicide. However, Poignant’s behavior on that day was the
last in a series of instances of noncompliance, which resulted in his discharge from
the sex offender treatment program. Therefore, because Poignant failed to comply
with the rules of his sex offender treatment program, he was discharged from it and
he was not participating as required by the district court’s judgment.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we conclude that: (1) there was sufficient evidence to
support the district court’s findings that in various ways Defendant Poignant had
failed to participate in a sex offender treatment program; (2) Poignant has shown
no clear error in the district court’s findings; and (3) the district court did not abuse
its discretion in revoking Poignant’s supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
16