United States v. Robert Morin
832 F.3d 513
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Robert Morin pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failing to register as a sex offender after moving to Texas.
- The PSR recommended sex-offender treatment, a condition to follow therapist-imposed “lifestyle restrictions,” and an alcohol-abstinence special condition.
- At sentencing the court orally ordered sex-offender evaluation/treatment and to “follow all lifestyle restrictions as determined by the therapist,” but did not orally mention alcohol abstinence.
- The written judgment, however, included (1) a special condition requiring abstinence from alcohol and intoxicants and (2) a condition that Morin must follow all lifestyle restrictions/treatment requirements imposed by the therapist and continue them throughout supervision.
- Morin appealed, challenging (A) Condition No. 4 as an improper delegation of judicial authority to the therapist, and (B) Condition No. 1 (alcohol abstinence) as inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Condition No. 4 impermissibly delegates judicial authority to a therapist | Condition vests therapist with power to impose independent, lasting restrictions that affect liberty and could be enforced as conditions of supervised release | Government: challenge is not ripe; therapist may only choose treatment modalities and may never impose objectionable restrictions | Vacated Condition No. 4 — as written it impermissibly delegates authority because it allows therapist to impose independent lifestyle restrictions without court review |
| Whether written Condition No. 1 (alcohol abstinence) conflicts with oral sentence | Written abstinence condition was not pronounced orally; Morin lacked opportunity to object at sentencing | Government conceded conflict; argued condition was appropriate | Vacated Condition No. 1 — oral pronouncement controls; remand to amend written judgment to conform to oral sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2013) (ripeness of challenges to optional treatment conditions)
- United States v. Fellows, 157 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 1998) (upholding therapist-tethered condition limited to compliance with treatment program)
- United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2009) (upholding therapist-imposed restrictions where court retained ultimate authority)
- United States v. Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2006) (no improper delegation where district court signaled it would retain and exercise ultimate responsibility)
- United States v. Kent, 209 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2000) (improper delegation where court deferred oversight to probation officer)
- United States v. Pruden, 398 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2005) (court must decide nature and extent of punishment; cannot delegate core sentencing authority)
- United States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2015) (limitations on delegating decisions that make liberty contingent on non-judicial discretion)
- United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2006) (oral pronouncement controls over written judgment; defendant’s right to be present at sentencing)