Unreported / Non-Citable
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 Turner 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 substance-abuse condition could not be imposed without the orally stated prerequisite of a failed urinalysis.
The court vacated the judgment only to the extent that it omitted that prerequisite, 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 orally pronounced sentence controls over a conflicting written judgment.
- Turner may be required to participate in substance-abuse treatment only if he first tests positive for illegal narcotics.
- The Fifth Circuit otherwise affirmed Turner’s judgment and limited the remand to correcting the written condition.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a written criminal judgment may not materially expand a supervised-release condition announced in open court. When the two conflict, the proper remedy is a limited vacatur and remand so the written judgment accurately reflects the oral sentence.