Background
Keshonn David Stevenson was serving two concurrent terms of supervised release following convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for escape from custody. After being hospitalized 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 eighteen months of imprisonment in each case, to run consecutively for a total of thirty-six months. The district court described the supervision as a failure and noted the need for a punitive sanction to encourage Stevenson to reassess his life.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied plain error review because Stevenson did not object to the sentence at the district court level. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Esteras, district courts may not consider the need for just punishment for the underlying offense under Section thirty-five fifty-three subsection A two A. However, the Sixth Circuit has held that courts may consider the seriousness of the violation conduct as a breach of trust. The appellate court found that the district court’s references to punitive goals were not clear evidence of impermissible retribution for the underlying offenses. Instead, the context showed the court was focused on rehabilitation and the failure of supervision to achieve its mission. The record did not indicate the court expressly or unmistakably relied on impermissible factors.
What it means going forward
This decision clarifies that while district courts cannot sentence based on retribution for the original crime, they retain the authority to impose sanctions based on the severity of the supervised release violation and the breach of trust involved. It reinforces that plain error review is a high bar for defendants who fail to object to sentencing remarks at the trial level.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download