United States v. Ephesian Franklin, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17629

Ephesian Johnny Franklin pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment and 24 months' supervised release.
The written judgment required Franklin “to participate in a mental health program as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer.”
At sentencing, the district court orally stated it was “recommending mental health treatment if needed while in custody and after during supervised release.”
Franklin challenged the written mental-health special condition on appeal as ambiguous and an improper delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer.
The panel considered whether to apply abuse-of-discretion or plain-error review given the divergence between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment.
The Fifth Circuit concluded the written condition created an ambiguity about whether the court delegated the decision to require treatment to the probation officer, vacated the condition, and remanded for resentencing with instructions on permissible delegation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Franklin)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Standard of review for condition added only in written judgment	Abuse of discretion because Franklin had no opportunity to object to wording he saw only in the written judgment	Plain-error review because no objection was made at sentencing	Court applied abuse-of-discretion review (gave defendant benefit of doubt)
Ambiguity between oral pronouncement and written condition	Written judgment impermissibly delegates whether treatment is required to probation officer; Franklin could not object at sentencing to wording he had not seen	Oral recommendation signaled possible probation discretion; no explicit delegation in speech	Condition vacated as ambiguous about delegating decision whether treatment is needed
Impermissible delegation of judicial power	Probation officer cannot be given authority to decide whether defendant must participate in therapy	Government contends delegation limited to implementation details is permissible	Court reiterated that delegating whether treatment is required is impermissible; delegation may be limited to details (provider, schedule) if court mandates therapy
Appropriate remedy	Remand for reconsideration/clarification	Remand also appropriate	Court vacated the condition and remanded for resentencing with clarifying instruction on permissible delegation

United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (oral pronouncement controls when defendant lacks opportunity to object to written terms)
United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003) (oral sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
United States v. Rodriguez, 558 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for supervised-release condition is abuse of discretion)
United States v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2010) (failure to object at sentencing triggers plain-error review)
United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for unobjected-to conditions)
United States v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1995) (sentencing and terms of supervised release are core judicial functions not delegable)
United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001) (clarifies when delegation to probation officer regarding implementation details is permissible)
United States v. Salazar, 751 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2014) (invited-error doctrine bars complaining about errors a defendant provoked)
Wells v. United States, 519 U.S. 482 (1997) (principle underlying invited-error doctrine)