Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment sentencing Brandon A. DeCapua to eleven months’ imprisonment and eight years of supervised release for violating the terms of his supervised release. The court declined to reach his challenge to the notification-of-risk condition because it was unripe, and it held that his arguments concerning the cost of computer monitoring were waived or unsupported on the record.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether DeCapua's challenge to the supervised-release provision stating that he may be required to pay computer-monitoring costs was preserved and justiciable.
- Whether the standing notification-of-risk condition improperly delegated authority to the probation officer.
- Whether the district court's judgment should be affirmed.
Holdings
- The court declined to decide whether requiring an indigent defendant to pay for computer monitoring that prevents internet access would be constitutional because DeCapua waived the relevant arguments by failing to present them to the district court.
- DeCapua's challenge to the alleged delegation of authority to the probation officer was unripe because the condition stated that he may be required to notify a third party and he had not yet been required to do so.
Key quotations
“If the court determines in consultation with your probation officer that, based on your criminal record, personal history and characteristics, and the nature and circumstances of your offense, you pose a risk of committing further crimes against another person (including an organization), the probation officer may require you to notify the person about the risk and you must comply with that instruction.” (5)
“Because the applicable notification-of-risk condition of supervised release only contemplates that DeCapua "may" be required to notify a third party about the risk he poses and he has not yet been required to do so, his challenge is unripe.” (5-6)
Factual background
DeCapua was convicted in 2009 of knowingly possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and received a ten-year term of supervised release following imprisonment. His supervision required disclosure of computer devices and authorized, but did not require, computer monitoring, with a provision stating that he may be required to pay monitoring costs. After repeated violations involving undisclosed devices, the district court continued the payment provision and imposed eleven months' imprisonment and eight years' supervised release. DeCapua had not shown that he was indigent, that monitoring would cost more than one dollar per day, that he had actually been required to pay, or that payment prevented internet access.
Procedural history
DeCapua was convicted in 2009 of knowingly possessing child pornography and sentenced to imprisonment followed by supervised release. After successive violations of a computer-disclosure condition, his supervised release was revoked, and the district court imposed the challenged computer-monitoring payment provision and notification-of-risk condition. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the challenge to the monitoring-payment provision was waived and that the delegation challenge to the notification-of-risk condition was unripe.