Background
Rickey Steve Farris, Jr. appealed from a district court judgment that revoked his term of supervised release and sentenced him to nine months of imprisonment and twenty years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Farris argued that the district court denied him a jury trial regarding the violation of his conditions and that the sentence was based on impermissible retributive purposes stemming from his breach of trust.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that its precedent forecloses Farris’s arguments. Specifically, United States v. Hinson establishes that there is no right to a jury trial in revocation proceedings. Additionally, United States v. Cano confirms that considering breach of trust in imposing a revocation sentence is permissible. The court noted that the Supreme Court in Esteras v. United States took no position on whether breach of trust is a permissible consideration, but existing Fifth Circuit law controls.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that defendants in supervised release revocation proceedings do not have a right to a jury trial and that courts may consider breach of trust when determining the appropriate sentence.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download