Background
Eagle Wind Lajeunesse pleaded guilty to abusive sexual contact and received 120 months in prison followed by lifetime supervised release. After leaving prison, he violated his supervised-release conditions four times.
The latest violations involved entering a private residence without permission, having unsupervised contact with minors, and lying to his probation officer about that contact. Although the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range was five to 11 months, the district court varied upward and imposed 36 months in prison. Lajeunesse appealed, arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the upward variance based on Lajeunesse’s repeated supervised-release violations. The panel rejected his contention that the minors’ status as teenagers made the variance improper because his release conditions prohibited unauthorized contact with minors regardless of age.
The court also rejected Lajeunesse’s argument that the district court improperly relied on his original offense. It concluded that the record showed the district court based the sentence on his extensive history of release violations and the nature of the current violations, not on the underlying abusive-sexual-contact conviction.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated violations of supervised release may support a substantial upward variance from the advisory Guidelines range.
- A condition barring unauthorized contact with minors applies regardless of whether the minors are teenagers or younger children.
- The district court relied permissibly on Lajeunesse’s violation history and current conduct rather than improperly punishing him again for his original offense.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision reinforces the broad discretion district courts possess when sentencing defendants who repeatedly violate supervised-release conditions. A revocation sentence substantially above the Guidelines range may be upheld when the record ties the variance to repeated noncompliance and the nature of the latest violations.
It also illustrates the importance of distinguishing consideration of a defendant’s violation history from improper reliance on the original conviction: the former may justify an upward variance when supported by the record.