United States v. Bainbridge, No. 13-30017 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to one count of assault with intent to kidnap. At issue was whether a district court could impose a sexual deviancy evaluation as a condition of supervised release when deviant sexual conduct was not an element of the underlying crime of conviction. The court agreed with the Eighth and Tenth Circuits and held that a district court could modify a defendant's conditions of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(2) even absent a showing of changed circumstances. The district court's order modifying the conditions of supervised released did not constitute error where the district court properly followed the requirements of section 3583(e)(2). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered defendant to undergo a sexual deviancy evaluation to determine whether additional supervised released conditions were necessary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s order modifying the conditions of the defendant’s supervised release to require the defendant, who had completed his prison term for Assault with Intent to Kidnap, to undergo a sexual deviancy evaluation to determine whether additional supervised release conditions were necessary. The panel held that a district court can modify a defendant’s conditions of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) even absent a showing of changed circumstances, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring a sexual deviancy evaluation for a crime that did not constitute a “sex offense.” The panel explained that given the nature of the offense admitted to in the plea agreement, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a sexual deviancy evaluation was reasonably related to the sentencing purposes of deterrence, protection of society, as well as any treatment that should be provided to the defendant.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.