US v. Combs: In 2012, Combs was convicted for racketeering conspiracy and served about four years in prison. While on supervised release he had multiple revocations, some involving the assault of his significant other ND. She attended two of the revocation hearings and was addressed by the district court who “invited her to call the probation officer if she had any issues.” She did not appear at a third, however, which arose from Combs’ possession of a firearm. At the revocation hearing, the district court mentioned that “there were concerns noted by” ND “with respect to your potential release.” The district court also told Combs that he had “terrorized people” including ND who had “called my chambers worried about when you would be released by the state, whether or not there was a federal detainer.” Ultimately, the district court imposed a revocation sentence of 37 months in prison, the bottom of the advisory Guideline range.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed that sentence on appeal. Combs argued that the district court’s reliance on ND’s out of court statements in determining his sentence violated his right to confront witnesses at revocation hearings enshrined in Rule 32.1. Applying plain error review, the court rejected the Government’s contention that such protections only apply to the “guilt phase” of revocation proceedings, rather than the “sentencing phase,” a distinction the court held “cannot be correct.” Nonetheless, the court concluded that any error that occurred in Combs’ case did not affect his substantial rights as there was no evidence showing a probability that the district court would have imposed a lower sentence without having considered ND’s statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment