Background
Brandon Turner pleaded guilty to possessing fentanyl and cocaine hydrochloride with intent to distribute, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction.
At sentencing, the district court orally stated that Turner would undergo random urinalysis and would be required to participate in a substance-abuse program if he tested positive for illegal narcotics. The written judgment instead required him to participate in a substance-abuse program without making a failed urinalysis a precondition.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that the written judgment actually conflicted with the district court’s oral pronouncement of Turner’s sentence. Because an oral pronouncement controls when it conflicts with the written judgment, the written condition could not impose unconditional participation in substance-abuse treatment.
The court vacated the judgment only to the extent that it omitted the failed-urinalysis precondition, affirmed the judgment in all other respects, and remanded for entry of an amended written judgment conforming to the orally pronounced supervised-release condition.
Key Takeaways
- An oral sentencing pronouncement controls over a conflicting written judgment.
- Turner’s substance-abuse-program requirement applies only if he fails a urinalysis.
- The Fifth Circuit otherwise affirmed the judgment and ordered only a limited correction on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that written judgments must accurately reflect conditions announced at sentencing. A written condition that materially expands an orally imposed supervised-release requirement presents an actual conflict that must be corrected.