Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms Ashley Simmons’s supervised-release revocation and conviction for failing to appear at his violation-of-supervised-release hearing. The court holds that Simmons knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present, that any error in proceeding in his absence was harmless, and that imposing consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3146(b)(2) was not plain error because the statute’s application was unsettled. The court also rejects Simmons’s constitutional challenge to supervised-release revocation proceedings, with Judge Kearse concurring separately.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly proceeded with Simmons's supervised-release-violation hearing in his absence.
- Whether the district court plainly erred by imposing consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3146(b)(2) for failure to appear at a supervised-release-violation hearing and the underlying supervised-release violations.
- Whether supervised-release revocation proceedings are unconstitutional because they do not require grand-jury indictment, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a jury trial.
Holdings
- Simmons knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present, and the district court did not commit reversible error by proceeding with the supervised-release-violation hearing in his absence. In any event, any potential error was harmless because Simmons showed no reasonable possibility of prejudice and the evidence of the violations was overwhelming.
- The district court did not plainly err by concluding that § 3146(b)(2) required the failure-to-appear sentence to run consecutively to the supervised-release sentences because the statute's application to failure to appear at a supervised-release-violation hearing was unsettled law.
- Supervised-release revocation proceedings and their attendant procedural mechanisms are constitutional and do not require grand-jury indictment, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or a jury trial for the revocation violations.
Key quotations
“We need not resolve that question today, since, even under Simmons’s preferred standard, his argument is unavailing.” (at 7)
“Because this issue constitutes an unsettled area of the law, we cannot say that the district court committed plain error by concluding that the statute mandated consecutive sentences.” (at 14)
“As Simmons acknowledges, this Court has rejected those very arguments and affirmed that “the supervised release revocation process, and its attendant procedural mechanisms, is constitutional.”” (at 15-16)
Factual background
Simmons was on supervised release stemming from a 2009 fraud conviction when he was charged with multiple violations, including fraudulent receipt of a COVID-related Small Business Administration loan, unauthorized travel, and unauthorized contact with convicted felons. He failed to appear for his March 24, 2022 supervised-release-violation hearing despite knowing its date and location, and the district court proceeded in his absence after a brief adjournment. The court found overwhelming evidence of the violations, later imposed supervised-release and failure-to-appear sentences, and ordered the latter to run consecutively.
Procedural history
The Eastern District of New York proceeded with Simmons's supervised-release-violation hearing after he failed to appear, finding that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present. Simmons later pleaded guilty to failing to appear under 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). The district court imposed an 18-month sentence for one supervised-release violation, concurrent 12-month sentences for other violations, and a consecutive 30-month sentence for failure to appear. The Second Circuit affirmed.