Background
Keshonn David Stevenson was serving two concurrent terms of supervised release following convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and escape from custody. After being transported to a hospital and failing to return to his halfway house, he was declared absent without leave. The district court found he violated the terms of his supervised release and sentenced him to thirty-six months of imprisonment in total, citing the failure of supervision and the need for a punitive sanction.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied plain error review because Stevenson did not object to the sentence at the district court level. While the Supreme Court’s decision in Esteras prohibits considering the seriousness of the underlying offense, the Sixth Circuit found the district court’s references to punitive goals were not an unmistakable reliance on impermissible retributive factors. The record showed the court was focused on the breach of trust and the need for rehabilitation under Section thirty-five fifty-three subsection A, paragraph D.
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that general references to punitive goals in revocation sentencing do not automatically constitute plain error if the record indicates the court was primarily focused on the defendant’s breach of trust and rehabilitative needs.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download