Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



5 min read

Ivan Michael Faunce's Appeal: Revocation of Supervised Release



In this compelling court opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, we are presented with an intriguing appeal filed by Ivan Michael Faunce, challenging the revocation of his supervised release. This case delves deep into two crucial issues that have sparked heated debates: the alleged error committed by the district court in determining the severity of the criminal mischief charges and its controversial decision to allow remote testimony from a key witness. With an unwavering commitment to uphold the principles of justice, the court of appeals conducts a meticulous examination of these matters and ultimately affirms the judgment handed down by the district court.

The District Court's Examination of evidence

This legal saga finds its roots in the district court's fateful decision to revoke Faunce's supervised release. The revocation was triggered by disturbing allegations of violent actions taken against his ex-girlfriend, E.B. It is claimed that Faunce not only physically assaulted her but also held her hostage within the confines of an RV. The district court, leaving no stone unturned, painstakingly examines the evidence presented before it and reaches a troubling conclusion. Recognizing the gravity of Faunce's transgressions, the court finds him guilty of a series of offenses, including the serious charges of kidnapping, aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and violations of the terms of his supervised release. In response to these grave offenses, Faunce is sentenced to two years in prison, in addition to an extra year of supervised release.

The court's decision to impose such a sentence reflects its firm belief in the importance of protecting the rights and well-being of victims, as well as maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. By carefully considering the evidence and thoroughly analyzing the charges against Faunce, the court demonstrates its unwavering commitment to deliver justice.

Furthermore, the issues surrounding the alleged error in determining the severity of the criminal mischief charges and the permission granted for remote testimony add an intriguing layer to this case. The court of appeals gives thorough consideration to these matters, understanding their potential impact on Faunce's rights and the overall fairness of the legal proceedings. Ultimately, after careful examination and weighing of all relevant factors, the court upholds the district court's judgment, thus affirming its determination regarding the criminal mischief charges and the admissibility of remote testimony.

The opinion from the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, provides valuable insights into the intricate nature of the appellate court process. It serves as a compelling testament to the pivotal role that appellate courts fulfill in meticulously examining judgments rendered by lower courts. By doing so, they uphold the principles of justice, ensuring a fair and equitable legal system for every individual involved.

A Question of Due Process

Faunce, in his unwavering pursuit of justice, lodged an appeal, asserting that the district court infringed upon his due process rights by amending the petition without proper notice. However, the court of appeals conscientiously weighed Faunce's claims, meticulously examined the proceedings, and found no indication of error. Additionally, Faunce contested the district court's decision to permit E.B. to testify remotely, arguing that it encroached upon his due process rights. Yet again, the court of appeals scrutinized the case with utmost care and concluded that the district court had not erred in its judgment.

Focusing on the first issue, the appeals court conducted a comprehensive analysis of whether the district court erred in finding criminal mischief. Criminal mischief refers to the intentional and wrongful destruction, alteration, or damage to someone else's property without their consent. This offense typically involves acts such as vandalism, graffiti, arson, or tampering with physical objects. The severity of criminal mischief charges varies depending on the jurisdiction and the extent of the damage caused.

Appeals Court Continues to Uphold District Court's Ruling

Painstakingly reviewing the evidence, the court afforded Faunce's claims their due diligence. Upon careful consideration, the appeals court concluded that the district court's determination was well-founded, irrefutably supported by evidence that unequivocally pointed to Faunce having shattered E.B.'s car window. The court's commitment to justice was evident, as it left no stone unturned in its quest for truth.

Turning its attention to the second issue, the court of appeals dove deep into the question of whether the district court had made an error in allowing remote testimony from E.B. In pursuit of a thorough understanding, the court embarked on a meticulous analysis, examining the procedural intricacies with utmost discernment. It discovered that Faunce had failed to raise his due process argument in the district court, thereby waiving his right to claim its violation. Building upon this crucial point, the court further ascertained that the district court had not abused its discretion in permitting remote testimony. This decision, grounded in careful consideration and tempered with the overarching principles of justice, showcased the court's unwavering commitment to a fair and impartial legal process.

As the court of appeals delved into substantive legal discussions, it championed the timeless notions of due process and the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Referencing a myriad of relevant cases, the court buttressed the importance of confrontation rights in revocation hearings. Acknowledging the intrinsic significance of these constitutionally protected rights, the court reviewed the jurisprudential landscape in search of guiding principles. It emerged resolute, reaffirming that any conceivable error arising from the allowance of remote testimony was far from self-evident. In the pursuit of meticulous justice, it stressed the pivotal role played by the balancing test mandated by Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C), reinforcing that the district court had dutifully adhered to these standards. Ultimately, the court affirmed the district court's exercise of discretion in permitting E.B.'s remote testimony, a decision that encapsulated the very essence of a thoughtfully administered judicial process.

To summarize the intricate details and profound significance of this case, the court of appeals ultimately arrived at an unwavering judgment, affirming the district court's decision to revoke Ivan Michael Faunce's supervised release. Through meticulous examination, weighing the crucial matters of finding criminal mischief and allowing remote testimony, the court expounded upon the nuanced legal complexities with an unwavering commitment to justice. Moreover, the court astutely differentiated this case from United States v. Jones, delineating the distinctions in legal standards and factual circumstances, further bolstering the soundness of its conclusions. Lastly, the court, with an unwavering commitment to an impartial judicial process, emphasized the district court's prerogative in not considering new arguments raised by Mr. Faunce on appeal. By meticulously adhering to the parameters of the original proceedings, the court ensured a fair and consistent application of justice.


Appellate courts play a crucial role in the judicial system, serving as the next level of review above the trial court. These courts handle appeals, ensuring that the law has been correctly applied and that the rights of individuals are protected. Through their decisions, the appellate court contributes to the development of legal precedents and helps shape the interpretation and application of the law.

Appellate courts also provide a necessary avenue for individuals who believe that errors were made during their trial or that their rights were violated. By allowing parties to present their arguments before a panel of judges, appellate courts ensure that justice is served and that decisions are made based on legal principles and fairness.

The structure and procedures of appellate courts vary between jurisdictions, but they generally involve a panel of judges reviewing the record of the lower court proceedings, examining the arguments and evidence presented, and making a determination on whether the lower court's decision should be upheld or reversed.

It is important to note that appellate courts do not typically involve witnesses or engage in fact-finding. Instead, their focus is on reviewing legal issues, analyzing arguments, and applying the law to the specific case at hand. This ensures consistency in the interpretation and application of the law across different cases and helps establish legal standards for future cases.

Appellate courts also serve as a check on the power of trial courts, ensuring that judges adhere to legal principles and act within their authority. By providing an avenue for appeal, appellate courts promote fairness, accountability, and the protection of individual rights within the judicial system.

Overall, appellate courts are an integral part of the legal system, promoting the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law. Their decisions have a significant impact on individuals and society as a whole, shaping legal precedents and guiding the interpretation and application of the law.