United States v. Begaye
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6274
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Begaye pled guilty to a single count of aggravated sexual abuse of his eleven-year-old daughter in Indian Country.
- District court calculated a Guidelines range of 210–262 months but upwardly departed to 300 months with lifetime supervised release.
- Government sought upward departure under §§ 5K2.3, 5K2.8 (and 5K2.21/5K2.0) and for 3553(a) factors; Begaye opposed.
- District court found Ja.B. suffered extreme psychological injury and Begaye's conduct was unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading.
- Appeal challenged the upward departures for extreme psychological injury and extreme conduct, and the adequacy of the departure explanation.
- Court affirmed the sentence, upholding both § 5K2.3 and § 5K2.8 departures and rejecting the plain-error challenge to the explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5K2.3 departure is supported by the record | Begaye argues no comparative injury evidence; government bears burden. | Begaye's extreme psychological injury self-evident; no need for comparative evidence. | Yes; record shows extreme psychological injury; no error in departure. |
| Whether § 5K2.8 departure for extreme conduct is supported | Begaye contends no evidence his conduct was unusually heinous compared to others. | Repeated sexual abuse over years constitutes extreme conduct warranting departure. | Yes; the prolonged, repetitive abuse supports the § 5K2.8 departure. |
| Whether the district court adequately explained the degree of departure | Begaye claims the degree of departure was inadequately explained. | Court's explanation sufficed; plain-error review applies if objection raised. | No reversible plain error; explanation deemed adequate or harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Okane, 52 F.3d 828 (10th Cir. 1995) (requires some evidence of injury and normally resulting psychological injury)
- United States v. Atkinson, 1995 WL 620142 (10th Cir. 1995) (departure allowed where extreme psychological injury is self-evident)
- Robertson v. United States, 568 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2009) (four-part test for upward departures; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- United States v. Zamarripa, 905 F.2d 337 (10th Cir. 1990) (burden to show greater-than-normal psychological injury; no hard rule)
- Chatlin v. United States, 51 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 1995) (no mandatory comparative evidence required for § 5K2.3 departures)
- Phipps v. United States, 368 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2004) (unrebutted statements of victim can support § 5K2.3 departure)
- Oliver v. United States, 118 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 1997) (victim's psychologist report can support § 5K2.3 departure)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences after Booker)