United States v. Doyle

Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 8, 2023
No. 21-60950 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Detrick Doyle,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:15-CR-151-1
______________________________
Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Southwick and Oldham, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Detrick Doyle challenges the revocation of his supervised release,
arguing that the district court violated a number of his statutory and
constitutional rights during four informal show-cause hearings. But because
the exhibits and testimony presented at the formal revocation hearing
provided sufficient evidence from which the district court could conclude
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950
Doyle violated the conditions of his supervision, any errors during the show-
cause hearings were harmless. We therefore affirm.
I
Doyle pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the theft of firearms from
a federally licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u) and
924(i)(1). The district court sentenced him to five years of probation and
ordered him to pay $13,940.11 in restitution, with interest.
During Doyle’s second year on probation, the district court
conducted a show-cause hearing that was attended by Doyle, Doyle’s
mother, an Assistant United States Attorney, and two probation officers.
The court noted that Doyle had not made a restitution payment in several
months and that he was $1,300 in arrears. The court warned Doyle that his
probation officer could move to revoke Doyle’s probation if he failed to
comply with the conditions of his probation and the court’s orders.
Two months after that show-cause hearing, the probation officer
moved to revoke Doyle’s probation. The district court granted the motion
and sentenced Doyle to nine months of imprisonment and three years of
supervised release. Ten months later, after Doyle had served that term of
imprisonment, the district court revoked Doyle’s supervised release and
sentenced him to an additional nine months of imprisonment and eighteen
months of supervised release. Doyle did not appeal these revocation
judgments.
Over the following two years, the district court conducted three more
show-cause hearings, all of which were attended by Doyle, two probation
officers, and an Assistant United States Attorney.
At the first of these hearings, the district court suggested that Doyle
reside at a halfway house and “earn a good income” in order to pay
2
Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950
restitution before his supervision ended. The court asked Doyle if he would
be “willing to modify the terms” of his supervised release and report to a
halfway house. Doyle responded, “Anything to keep from getting
incarcerated, Your Honor.” A week later, Doyle’s probation officer moved
to modify Doyle’s conditions of supervision, alleging that Doyle had (1) used
a controlled substance and (2) failed to provide financial documentation.
The petition proposed that Doyle reside at a halfway house for six months
and pay 70% of his income toward restitution. Doyle waived his rights to a
hearing and to assistance of counsel and agreed to the proposed modification.
The district court granted the petition.
At the second of these show-cause hearings, the court questioned
Doyle about his employment while at the halfway house. The district court
ordered Doyle to continue contributing 70% of his income toward restitution
while he was living at the halfway house; submit monthly cashflow
statements to probation; and appear for an additional show-cause hearing
unless he complied with the district court’s orders and the conditions of his
supervision. Doyle finished his time at the halfway house in March 2021, and
he informed his probation officer that he could pay $300 per month toward
his restitution.
At the last of these show-cause hearings, the district court again
focused on Doyle’s restitution obligation, explaining that he was $450 in
arrears. The court ordered Doyle to pay the $450 and continue to pay $300
per month toward restitution.
Two months after the last show-cause hearing, Doyle’s probation
officer moved to revoke Doyle’s supervised release. The amended petition
for revocation alleged four violations: (1) use of a controlled substance,
(2) failure to provide financial documentation, (3) failure to pay restitution,
and (4) failure to follow instructions from the probation officer.
3
Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950
The district court held a formal revocation hearing and appointed
counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2). Doyle
denied the alleged violations. The Government called as witnesses two of
Doyle’s probation officers, who testified about Doyle’s positive urinalysis
report, his failure to complete and submit the required financial
documentation, his failure to pay restitution, and his failure to follow the
officers’ instructions. The Government introduced Doyle’s incomplete
cashflow statements, as well as Doyle’s positive urinalysis report, which was
signed by Doyle and stated, “I admit use of a controlled substance as
indicated by the above-reported urine test result.”
After hearing the testimony and evidence, the district court revoked
Doyle’s supervised release and sentenced him to six months of imprisonment
and twelve months of supervised release. Doyle timely appealed the order of
revocation.
II
“We review a decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion, but
we review issues of constitutional law de novo.” 1 “A district court may
revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that a condition of release has been violated.” 2 We apply the
harmless-error rule to revocation judgments, disregarding “[a]ny error,
_____________________
1
United States v. Locke, 482 F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir. 2007) (first citing United States
v. King, 990 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1993); and then citing United States v. Grandlund, 71
F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995)); see also United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220, 231-32 (5th
Cir. 2009) (“While revocation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, the legal and
constitutional bases of the challenges thereto are reviewed de novo.”).
2
United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) (providing that release may be revoked if the court finds that “the defendant
violated a condition of supervised release” (emphasis added)).
4
Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950
defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights.” 3
“Where there is an adequate basis for the district court’s discretionary action
of revoking probation, the reviewing court need not decide a claim of error as
to other grounds that had been advanced as a cause for revocation.” 4
First, Doyle argues that the show-cause hearings violated his statutory
and constitutional rights. Regardless of what occurred at the show-cause
hearings, the testimony and evidence presented at the formal revocation
hearing justified the district court’s ultimate revocation judgment. The proof
of Doyle’s failure to submit financial documentation, the positive urinalysis
report, and the probation officers’ testimony together provide sufficient
evidence from which the district court could conclude that Doyle violated the
conditions of his supervised release. “[E]ven if there were deficiencies in the
show-cause hearings, such errors were harmless with respect to the court’s
ultimate decision to revoke [Doyle’s] supervised release.” 5
Second, Doyle raises procedural and substantive challenges to the
modifications made to the conditions of his supervision before this revocation
judgment. Doyle did not appeal those modifications, and they have since
lapsed. “[T]here is nothing for us to remedy;” 6 we decline to address these
challenges.
_____________________
3
Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); see United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260, 262 (5th
Cir. 2016); United States v. Minnitt, 617 F.3d 327, 332 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v.
English, 400 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2005).
4
United States v. Turner, 741 F.2d 696, 698 (5th Cir. 1984); see also McCormick, 54
F.3d at 219 (extending Turner to review of supervised release revocation).
5
See United States v. Sensing, No. 21-60662, 2023 WL 167201, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan.
12, 2023) (unpublished) (per curiam).
6
See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 18 (1998).
5
Case: 21-60950 Document: 00516780013 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/08/2023
No. 21-60950
Last, Doyle argues that the district court erred by failing to rule on his
request to waive restitution interest. Because Doyle’s request to waive
interest was part of his motion to dismiss the amended petition for
revocation, the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss also denied
that request. The district court did not fail to rule on his request.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order
revoking Doyle’s supervised release.
6