United States v. Terrence Hawkins, No. 17-1232 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant did not object to a search in his revocation proceedings, and the issue is waived; the sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was not substantively unreasonable. [ August 03, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1232 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Terrence Lamar Hawkins lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: July 24, 2017 Filed: August 4, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Terrence Hawkins brings this appeal after the district court1 revoked his supervised release on concurrent federal sentences that he was serving, and imposed 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. concurrent revocation sentences of 10 months in prison and no additional supervised release. For reversal, Hawkins challenges as unlawful a search during which a police officer found drugs in his pocket. This argument fails because Hawkins did not raise it below, and in any event, he did not allege harassment. See United States v. Charles, 531 F.3d 637, 640 (8th Cir. 2008) (assuming defendant did not waive Fourth Amendment argument by failing to raise it before district court, and holding that exclusionary rule does not apply in revocation of supervised release proceedings absent showing of harassment). Hawkins also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable, but this argument fails as well. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that the sentence, which is within the advisory Guidelines revocation range, is not unreasonable, see United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
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.
