United States v. Gavilanes-Ocaranza

The revocation of a supervised release does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial or a trial by jury.

Defendant, Rodolfo Gavilanes-Ocaranza, plead guilty to attempted reentry after having been a removed alien from the United States. He was initially sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment with three years supervised release in 2009. Three years later, in 2012, a different district court increased the sentence to 46 months and revoked his supervised released, opting for an additional 12 month’s imprisonment to run consecutively. Gavilanes-Ocaranza appealed the increase, alleging violations of the Sixth Amendment, including the right to a speedy trial and a trial by jury. The Ninth Circuit reviewed for plain error. The panel stated that district courts are authorized to make requirements for supervised release or probation in addition to sentencing imprisonment. As a result, revocation of supervised release must be analyzed the same way under the Sixth Amendment to that of revocation of parole or probation. Therefore the panel held Gavilanes-Ocaranza does not possess the right to a speedy trial in revocation of supervised release proceedings, because it is not a part of the criminal prosecution or the extension of the original criminal prosecution. The Defendant does, however, have the right to a reasonably prompt hearing. Next, the panel addressed whether the right to a trial by jury was violated. Using precedent, established in Huerta-Pimental, the panel held that the revocation of a supervised release does not violate the right to a trial by jury. AFFIRMED