Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 1 of 20
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10856
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-tp-20200-JEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID SUBIL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 8, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Subil appeals the revocation of his supervised release and sentence of
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 2 of 20
21 months’ imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). For the reasons set forth below,
we affirm the district court’s revocation of Subil’s term of supervised release and
imposition of a 21-month sentence.
I.
In 2006, Subil was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’
supervised release for use of a fictitious name/address to commit fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1342. The conditions of Subil’s supervised release
specified that he was not to commit another federal, state, or local crime; that he
report to a probation officer as directed; and that he would notify the probation
officer ten days before any change of residence. In 2010, Subil’s probation
officer, John Steinhilber, filed a petition recommending that Subil’s supervision be
revoked. Steinhilber believed, inter alia, that Subil had violated his conditions of
supervised release by (1) driving under the influence in violation of Florida law;
(2) committing grand theft in violation of Florida law; (3) failing to notify the
probation officer of a change in Subil’s residence; and (4) failing to report to the
probation officer as directed.
At the revocation hearing, the government presented the testimony of
Steinhilber and offered into evidence two copies of judgments of conviction. The
judgments indicated that “David Subil” had pled guilty to grand theft and had pled
2
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 3 of 20
nolo contendere to driving under the influence. Subil objected to the admission of
the evidence on the grounds of “improper foundation,” asserting that the
documents were not properly certified. The court found that the judgments were
certified and overruled Subil’s objections. Steinhilber testified that he had not
questioned any witnesses as to whether Subil himself was the “David Subil”
named in the judgement for grand theft.
Following Steinhilber’s testimony, the government stated that it had no
further evidence, and the parties presented their final arguments to the court. In
his closing argument, Subil conceded that he had failed to notify the probation
officer of a change in Subil’s residence and failed to report to the probation officer
as directed. The court stated it would schedule a hearing to make a final
determination on the remaining charges.
The day after the hearing, the government filed a memorandum in which it
asserted that it had booking photographs of Subil related to the grand-theft and
driving-under-the-influence cases that provided further evidence that Subil was
the individual named in the two judgments. The government argued that the court
should allow the government to reopen its case to introduce the photographs
because the federal public defender, who had represented Subil before he retained
his present counsel, had stated that Subil would not contest the violations. It was
3
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 4 of 20
not until the night before the hearing that Subil’s present counsel informed the
government that the hearing would, in fact, be contested. The government later
formally moved to reopen the hearing. Over Subil’s objection, the court granted
the government’s motion.
Upon the reopening of the revocation proceedings, Subil asserted that his
previous objections to the judgments of convictions were on the grounds that their
admission violated his confrontation rights. The court found that the records were
reliable and that the reliability of the evidence outweighed Subil’s right to
confrontation. The court further stated that it believed that the government was
using the judgments to prove the fact of conviction, and there was no witness who
would be able to reliably testify as to anything of value with respect to the fact of
his conviction. Thus, it overruled Subil’s objection. Next, the government
introduced two mug shot profiles of an individual who Steinhilber recognized as
Subil. The profiles indicated that Subil was arrested for driving under the
influence on October 3, 2010, and for grand theft on October 23, 2010.
Subil argued that the government had not shown that the relevant conduct
occurred during his supervised release period. The court determined that he had
committed the state offenses during his period of supervision because it was
unlikely that he had committed the offenses before his imprisonment in 2006, but
4
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 5 of 20
was not arrested for the offenses until 2010. The court determined that Subil had
violated the mandatory conditions of his supervision based on the judgments of
convictions.
In a sentencing memorandum, Subil requested that the court sentence him to
a period of supervised release, not to a period of imprisonment, in order to
facilitate his rehabilitation. At sentencing, the government contended that Subil’s
position at the revocation hearing was inconsistent with his acceptance of
responsibility. Further, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether it
would be better for him to be out on supervised release, as opposed to in prison.
The government asserted that it hoped that Subil could obtain the treatment he
needed in prison. Subil, speaking on his own behalf, responded that the reason he
did not immediately accept responsibility for his violations was because he did not
believe he would have such a “good response” from the government. Subil stated
that he had a “medical issue,” as his probation officer knew.
The court responded to Subil that no one questioned whether he had a
medical issue. The court stated that, “[i]n fact, it’s one of the ways they’re urging
me to put you in so that you can get the medical treatment that they agree that you
need.” The court stated that, had Subil initially admitted responsibility, it would
be more sympathetic to his request not to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
5
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 6 of 20
Subil instead seemed to be trying to have the “best of both worlds” by first
contesting the violations at the hearing and then, later, admitting that he did
commit the violations. The court stated that Subil could do that and had “every
right to do that.” However, it did not help him at sentencing. The court stated that
it had considered Subil’s statements, the parties’ arguments, all of the information
in the violation report, and the evidence that had been presented. It then imposed
a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, at the low end of the applicable guideline
range of 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment, and 15 months’ supervised release.
II.
On appeal, Subil argues that the district court erred in admitting a Florida
judgment of conviction for grand theft because there was no foundation for its
admission, as the government had not proven that Subil was the “David Subil”
named in the judgment. He also contends that the district court’s findings were to
be based on verified facts and an accurate knowledge of his actions.
A district court’s revocation of supervised release is reviewed under an
abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 112 (11th
Cir. 1994). We review for plain error those issues to which the defendant did not
timely object. United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2005). An
error is plain when it is “obvious” or “clear” under current law. Id. at 1207
6
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 7 of 20
(quotations omitted).
A district court’s finding that a defendant has committed a violation of the
terms of his supervision should be based on verified facts and accurate knowledge
of the defendant’s behavior. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 484, 92 S.Ct.
2593, 2602, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 414
(11th Cir. 1994) (providing that those facing revocation of supervised release are
entitled to the same due process protections provided to those facing revocation of
parole). The rules that apply during a revocation hearing should be informal and
flexible enough for the court to consider evidence, such as letters, affidavits and
other material, which would not be admissible in a criminal trial. Morrissey, 408
U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in
supervised release revocation proceedings. Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114. A certified
copy of a conviction is proper evidence that a defendant violated a state or federal
law and, thereby, violated a condition of his or her supervised release. See United
States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir. 1996).
Certified copies of public records are self-authenticating where the copy is
certified as correct by a custodian or other person authorized to make the
certification. Fed.R.Evid. 902(4)(A). In Subil’s case, the district court determined
that the judgment was properly certified, such that it was admissible, and Subil
7
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 8 of 20
does not challenge the court’s certification finding. Thus, the district court did not
commit error, let alone plain error, in admitting the judgment without first
requiring an independent showing that Subil was the “David Subil” named in the
judgment. Further, after the admission of the judgment, the government offered a
booking photograph of Subil related to his arrest for grand theft. Thus, although
the government did not show that Subil was the “David Subil” depicted in the
judgment before the court admitted the judgment, it did provide additional
evidence demonstrating such after the judgment was admitted. Accordingly, the
district court did not plainly err in relying on the grand-theft judgment of
conviction as evidence that Subil had violated the terms of his supervised release.
III.
Subil argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting the
government’s motion to reopen the revocation proceedings for the presentation of
additional evidence. Subil contends that (1) the motion was untimely; (2) the
evidence was available to the government at the inception of the proceedings with
minimal diligence; (3) the reopening prejudiced Subil, as it allowed the
government to directly respond to his arguments concerning deficiencies in the
evidence; and (4) it had no reason for requesting the reopening.
A decision to reopen a case to introduce additional evidence is reviewed for
8
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 9 of 20
abuse of discretion. United States v. Byrd, 403 F.3d 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2005).
A district court has great latitude in determining whether to permit the reopening
of a case so that omitted evidence may be presented. United States v. Molinares,
700 F.2d 647, 652 (11th Cir. 1983). We will not disturb the district court’s
exercise of discretion unless the defendant suffered actual prejudice in the conduct
of his defense. Id. at 649, 652. In determining whether a district court has abused
its discretion in declining to reopen a case for a defendant to present his own
testimony, we examine the following factors: (1) the timeliness of the motion to
reopen; (2) the character of the testimony to be offered; (3) the effect of granting
the motion to reopen; and (4) the reasonableness of the excuse for the request to
reopen. Byrd, 403 F.3d at 1284, 1287.
Review of the Byrd factors demonstrates that they weigh in favor of the
government. See id. at 1284. The government first requested the court to reopen
the proceedings for the purpose of presenting booking photographs of Subil the
day after the hearing was held, and thus, its request was timely. The government
asserted that it had not attempted to obtain the evidence it presented upon the
reopening because Subil’s previous counsel told the government that Subil would
not contest the violations. Thus, although the character of the evidence the
government introduced upon reopening ordinarily should have been presented at
9
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 10 of 20
the initial proceeding, Subil’s previous counsel’s representations excused the
government’s failure to present the evidence initially.
Although Subil argues that allowing the government to reopen its case after
it heard Subil’s arguments prejudiced him, we have previously rejected such an
argument. See Molinares, 700 F.2d at 649, 652 (determining that the defendant’s
defense had not been prejudiced by the district court’s decision to allow the
government to present evidence in response to arguments made in the defendant’s
motion for a judgment of acquittal). Finally, the government’s excuse for
requesting the reopening—that it was unprepared to present the evidence initially
because it was unaware that the hearing would be contested—was reasonable.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the
government to reopen its case to present additional evidence.
IV.
Subil argues that the district court’s determination that he violated the terms
of his supervised release during his period of supervision by committing grand
theft was not supported by sufficient evidence, as the evidence did not indicate
when he actually committed grand theft.
We review the district court’s conclusion that a defendant violated the terms
of his supervised release for an abuse of discretion. Copeland, 20 F.3d at 413. A
10
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 11 of 20
district court may revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release and impose a
prison sentence when it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant violated a condition of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);
United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006).
Sufficient evidence supports the court’s finding that Subil committed grand
theft during the term of his supervised release. The copy of his grand-theft
conviction was sufficient evidence to prove he violated a condition of his
supervision. Hofierka, 83 F.3d at 363 (affirming district court’s finding that
defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release based on a certified
copy of defendant’s judgment of conviction alone). The government demonstrated
that Subil was the “David Subil” depicted in the judgment of conviction. Further,
Steinhilber testified that the mug shot profile stated that Subil was arrested for
grand theft on October 23, 2010. As the district court determined, it was unlikely
that Subil committed grand theft in 2006, before his incarceration, but was not
arrested for the offense until 2010. Thus, the mug shot profile and Steinhilber’s
testimony proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Subil committed grand
theft during his term of supervised release.
V.
Subil argues that he was deprived of procedural due process at his
11
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 12 of 20
supervised release revocation hearing. According to Subil, he was never provided
with a full disclosure of the evidence against him, as the government never
provided him with his PSI or his mental health records. Subil further argues that
the district court erred in admitting hearsay evidence concerning the underlying
violations because it failed to properly balance Subil’s right to confrontation
against the government’s reason for not allowing confrontation. Subil contends
that he did not have an opportunity to present mitigating evidence because he was
denied access to his mental health records that the government possessed. Finally,
Subil asserts that the court did not state its findings for why it revoked his
supervised release in sufficient detail.
We review de novo whether a defendant’s due process rights were violated.
See United States v. Watkins, 147 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 1998) (reviewing de
novo whether a re-sentencing hearing violated defendant’s due process rights). A
defendant facing revocation of supervised release is not entitled to the same
procedural protections afforded a defendant in a criminal proceeding, but is
entitled to the protections set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer. See Copeland, 20 F.3d
at 414; Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 487-89, 92 S.Ct. at 2603-04. One of the protections
set forth in Morrissey is the requirement that a court make findings that
demonstrate the reasons for the revocation of supervised release and the evidence
12
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 13 of 20
upon which the court relied. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. at 2604. A
district court may state from the bench its reasons for revoking a defendant’s
supervised release. Copeland, 20 F.3d at 414. General conclusory reasons for the
revocation do not satisfy due process. Id. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1 sets forth most of
the minimal due process rights that apply to revocation proceedings. Frazier, 26
F.3d at 114. Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1, a defendant is entitled to the
following: (1) written notice of the alleged violation; (2) disclosure of the
evidence against the defendant; (3) an opportunity to appear at the hearing, present
evidence, and question any adverse witness except where the court determines that
the interest of justice does not require an appearance by such a witness; (4) notice
of the right to counsel; and (5) an opportunity to make a statement and present any
mitigating evidence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2)(A)-(E).
Because defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses during a supervised release revocation proceeding, the admission of
hearsay is not automatic. Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114. However, the Supreme Court
has stated that a defendant’s right to confrontation does not bar appropriate use of
conventional substitutes for live testimony, including affidavits, depositions, and
documentary evidence, during a revocation hearing. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411
U.S. 778, 782 n.5, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1760 n.5, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). In deciding
13
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 14 of 20
whether to admit hearsay testimony, the court should balance the defendant’s right
to confront adverse witnesses against the grounds asserted by the government for
denying confrontation. Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114. Further, the hearsay statement
must be reliable. Id. We have previously held that a defendant’s right to
confrontation was not violated by the admission of hearsay where a district court
determined that good cause existed for its admission, as the hearsay was highly
reliable. United States v. Penn, 721 F.2d 762, 764-66 (11th Cir. 1983).
Subil was provided with disclosure of the evidence against him. To the
extent that the government did rely on portions of an earlier version of Subil’s
presentence investigation report (“PSI”) to prove that Subil committed the
violations, it filed the pages of the PSI upon which it relied. Review of the record
demonstrates that the government never relied on his mental health records as
evidence against him at the hearing. Rather, Subil was the one to cite to his
mental health history as mitigating evidence. Subil’s opportunity to present
mitigating evidence was not impeded by the government. Steinhilber testified as
to the contents of the one report that he possessed and testified that the Bureau of
Prisons did not provide him with any of Subil’s medical records.
The district court properly balanced Subil’s right to confrontation against
the government’s reason for not allowing confrontation with respect to the
14
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 15 of 20
judgments of conviction. Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114. The court noted the highly
reliable nature of the judgments of conviction and noted the small value, if any,
that would be had by having a live witness with personal knowledge of Subil’s
convictions testify as to the judgments. See Penn, 721 F.2d at 764-66. The court
also noted that it was unlikely that there would even be a witness who would have
such personal knowledge. Finally, the district court stated the reasons for the
revocation of supervised release and the evidence upon which the court relied in
sufficient detail. The court indicated that it relied on Subil’s judgments of
convictions with respect to the violations of state law, and Subil had previously
conceded the reporting and notification violations. Thus, Subil’s due process
rights were not violated during the supervised release revocation hearing.
VI.
Subil argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines in
determining what grade of violation he had committed because the court did not
consider his actual conduct, but only considered the criminal charges underlying
his convictions. According to Subil, because the judgments did not indicate
whether he actually had committed the conduct, the court could not determine
what grade of violation he committed based on the judgements alone. Subil
contends that the court impermissibly considered his need for mental health
15
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 16 of 20
treatment in deciding to imprison him, in violation of the Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2385,
2392-93, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011), and impermissibly considered the fact that
Subil had exercised his right to a final revocation hearing.
We review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release
for reasonableness. United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1252
(11th Cir. 2008). This reasonableness review applies the deferential abuse of
discretion standard.1 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594,
169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The party challenging the sentence has the burden of
establishing that the sentence was unreasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d
784, 788 (11th Cir. 2008).
In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we conduct a two-step
review. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. at 597. First, we must ensure that the
sentence was procedurally reasonable, which includes proper calculation of the
guideline range. Id. Once we determine that a sentence is procedurally sound, we
must examine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the
1
We have not decided the appropriate standard of review for reasonableness where a
defendant does not object to the reasonableness of his sentence on the grounds raised on appeal,
as is the case here. Nonetheless, the resolution of the standard of review issue does not affect the
reasonableness analysis or ultimate outcome of this case.
16
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 17 of 20
record and the § 3553(a) factors. Id. A sentence that is based entirely upon an
impermissible factor is unreasonable because the sentence fails to achieve the
purposes of § 3553(a). Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d at 1252.
Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines governs violations of supervised
release and provides recommended ranges of imprisonment applicable upon
revocation. United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 799 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4). Under the Sentencing Guidelines, where a defendant violated
more than one condition of supervision, the grade of the violation is determined by
the violation with the most serious grade. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(b). The Guidelines
provide that conduct that constitutes a state offense punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding one year is a Grade B violation for which revocation of
supervised release is mandatory. U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a)(2), 7B1.3(a)(1). The
commentary to the Guidelines indicates that the grade of the violation is to be
based on a defendant’s actual conduct, rather than the conduct that is the subject of
the criminal charges or the conduct of which the defendant is convicted in a
criminal proceeding. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1, comment. (n.1).
Florida law allows a defendant to enter a plea of convenience, and thus, a
defendant may plead guilty while maintaining his innocence. See Garces v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 1337, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 2010); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(e)
17
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 18 of 20
(providing that, before the trial judge accepts a guilty plea, the court must
determine that the defendant either acknowledges his guilt or acknowledges that
the plea is in his best interest, while maintaining his innocence). Subil’s judgment
for grand theft does not indicate whether his plea of guilty was a plea of
convenience or an acknowledgment of his guilt. Regardless, even if Subil had
entered a plea of convenience, otherwise known as an Alford plea, his plea was the
functional equivalent of a guilty plea and required the Florida court to determine
that a factual basis existed to support his plea. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400
U.S. 25, 37-38 & n.10, 91 S.Ct. 160, 167-68 & n.10, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)
(holding that a court that accepts a guilty plea from a defendant who maintains his
innocence does not commit a constitutional error, so long as the plea has a factual
basis); Troville v. State, 953 So.2d 637, 638-40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
(providing that, so long as the guilty plea represents a voluntary and intelligent
choice among alternative courses of action open to a defendant and a sufficient
factual basis exists to support the plea of guilty, the collateral consequences
flowing from an Alford plea are the same as those that flow from an ordinary plea
of guilt). To the extent Subil claims that he was innocent of the crime of grand
theft or that there was no factual basis supporting his plea of guilty, his revocation
proceeding was not the proper forum in which to attack his conviction for grand
18
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 19 of 20
theft. Hofierka, 83 F.3d at 363. Thus, regardless of whether Subil entered a plea
of convenience or actually acknowledged his guilt of committing the offense of
grand theft, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that his actual
conduct included his commission of grand theft, a Grade B violation. See Fla.
Stat. §§ 812.014(2)(c), 775.082(3)(d) (providing that grand theft of the third
degree is a third-degree felony and is punishable by a term of imprisonment not to
exceed five years).
Next, review of the record shows that the district court did not rely on
Subil’s medical condition in sentencing Subil. Rather, the court agreed with Subil
that he had a “medical issue” and referenced the government’s earlier assertion
that a term of imprisonment would allow him to receive the treatment that the
government and Subil agreed that he needed. Thus, we do not decide whether the
Supreme Court’s holding in Tapia, 564 U.S. at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2392-93, applies
in the context of a supervised release revocation hearing.
Next, the record does not indicate that the court penalized Subil for
exercising his right to contest the revocation of his supervised release. Rather, the
court only commented on his refusal to accept responsibility. Subil had requested
leniency from the court, in part, based on his acceptance of responsibility for his
past acts. The court was permitted to weigh Subil’s failure to express remorse
19
Case: 12-10856 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 20 of 20
until sentencing against his actions taken during the hearing without relying on a
constitutionally impermissible factor. See United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d
839, 845 (11th Cir. 2010) (providing that, where a defendant has denied his guilt
in the face of evidence to the contrary, a court may consider that fact and decide
that he is not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1). As Subil has not raised any other grounds for why his sentence
is unreasonable, as is his burden, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment. See Talley, 431 F.3d at 788.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s revocation of
Subil’s term of supervised release and imposition of a sentence of 21 months’
imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.
20