United States v. Heath
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23600
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Heath produced child pornography involving two intoxicated minors at a party in Cedar Falls, Iowa, on April 21, 2007.
- He pled guilty to producing child pornography with a conditional plea preserving the right to appeal a mistake-of-age defense denial.
- The district court denied the mistake-of-age defense and sentenced Heath to 293 months, dismissing the other count.
- Heath challenged the decision not to allow a mistake-of-age defense and challenged the sentence as procedurally unsound and substantively unreasonable.
- Heath’s criminal history calculation included three points from a 2006 assault and probation revocation, raising double-counting arguments.
- The court concluded Heath’s revocation sentence was punishment for the underlying 2006 offense, not an additional punishment for the instant offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mistake-of-age defense is constitutionally required | Heath: First Amendment requires such a defense for producing child pornography. | United States: Distinct from distribution, no reasonable mistake-of-age defense required. | Foreclosed; no mandatory mistake-of-age defense for production |
| Whether including the probation-revocation sentence in criminal history constitutes impermissible double counting | Heath: Points from revocation should be excluded because they arise from conduct already considered in instant offense. | United States: Do not double-count; revocation punishment is for the underlying offense, not surplus for instant conduct. | Not double counting; post-revocation sentence properly counted |
| Whether the district court erred in imposing a within-guidelines sentence as substantively unreasonable | Heath: Court should have varied downward due to victims' conduct and over-representation of history. | United States: Court did not err; within the correctly calculated range is presumptively reasonable. | Not substantively unreasonable; within-guidelines sentence affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by not departing downward | Heath: The court should have departed based on § 5K2.10 or § 4A1.3 factors. | United States: No abuse; discretionary departure not warranted absent unconstitutional motive or lack of authority. | No reversible error; no improper departure |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilson, 565 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2009) (First Amendment doesn't require a reasonable-mistake-of-age defense for producing child pornography)
- United States v. Pliego, 578 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2009) (addressed mistake-of-age defense in production context)
- Gilmour v. Rogerson, 117 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 1997) (early support for no required mistake-of-age defense for production)
- Rohwedder, 243 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 2001) (double-counting framework for criminal-history calculations)
- United States v. Dozier, 555 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2009) (holds revocation-based sentence can count toward criminal history)
- Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (Supreme Court 2002) (suspended sentence is a term of imprisonment for the offense)