United States of America v. Taquan Laquise Johnson, (originally named Taquan Laguise Johnson), also known as MooMoo

St. Louis, Missouri criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with violating the conditions of his supervised release by committing another crime and by possessing a firearm.

Taquan Laquise Johnson appeals from the revocation of his supervised release,

arguing that the district court1 erred by allowing the probation officer to read from a

state court sentencing order during the revocation hearing. He claims that the hearsay

testimony violated his right to confront adverse witnesses under United States v. Bell,

785 F.2d 640 (8th Cir. 1986), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C).



The U.S. Probation Office alleged that Johnson had violated the conditions of

his supervised release by committing another crime and by possessing a firearm.

During the revocation hearing, defense counsel stated that his client admitted the

violations, explaining that Johnson had pleaded guilty in state court to attempted

aggravated robbery and that he had been sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment,

with the imposition of an additional 120 months' imprisonment suspended. Counsel

identified the state case number, the offense date, the sentence, the sentencing order,

and the date the sentencing order was filed in state court. Before imposing the

revocation sentence, the district court invited Johnson to make a statement.

To defense counsel's and the government's surprise, Johnson decided that he

no longer wanted to admit the violations. The prosecutor thus called the probation

officer as a witness and handed him the sentencing order, from which he identified

the defendant's name, the conviction, the offense and conviction dates, and the

sentence. Johnson did not object. Based on the probation officer's testimony, the

court found that Johnson had been convicted of attempted aggravated robbery and

had been sentenced as set forth above. Because he had committed a crime and thus

violated the conditions of his supervised release, the district court revoked his release

and sentenced him to 24 months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his

state term of imprisonment, with no further supervised release to follow.

1The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

The district court did not plainly err in admitting the probation officer's

recitation of information contained in a state court sentencing order. See United

States v. Burrage, 951 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review). The

government expected Johnson to admit the alleged violations of his conditions of

supervised release, which he did. When he withdrew his admissions before being

sentenced, the government was unexpectedly put to its burden of proof and thus

called the probation officer to testify. That testimony relied on the state sentencing

order to establish that Johnson had been convicted of and sentenced for attempted

aggravated robbery, which is a Grade A violation requiring revocation.2

Johnson did

not dispute the sentencing order's reliability at revocation, nor does he challenge its

reliability on appeal. We hold that the district court was not required to sua sponte

disallow the testimony when doing so likely would have required a continuance and

when the testimony was based on a demonstrably reliable court order. See Bell, 785

F.2d at 643 ("[T]he court should assess the explanation the government offers of why

confrontation is undesirable or impractical” and consider "the reliability of the

evidence which the government offers in place of live testimony.”); United States v.

Martin, 382 F.3d 840, 845 (8th Cir. 2004) ("[W]here . . . the underlying facts have

been sufficiently developed, this court may itself perform the Bell analysis on

review.”); Burrage, 951 F.3d at 916 (district court did not plainly err by not

addressing a confrontation issue during the revocation hearing when defendant did

not object). Our decision in United States v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 784, 788–89 (8th Cir.

2013), does not compel a different conclusion.

The judgment is affirmed. We grant the government's unopposed motion to

supplement the record.

______________________________

2

Johnson does not challenge that attempted aggravated robbery is a Grade A

violation that requires revocation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(1) (court shall revoke

supervised release upon a finding of a Grade A violation); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1)

(conduct constituting Grade A violation); Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-12-103 (elements of

aggravated robbery).

-3-

The judgment is affirmed. We grant the government’s unopposed motion to supplement the record