United States v. Stephanie Donelli
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6383
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Donelli pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion and one count of wire fraud and received a 60-month prison sentence.
- Appeals argue the district court failed to address a principal mitigation argument based on bipolar II disorder under Cunningham.
- The district court adopted the presentence report noting bipolar II disorder but did not treat it as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
- The crime involved a charitable-sounding but false settlement ploy, resulting in over $443,000 obtained from the Viguses, unreported as income.
- At sentencing, the court endorsed a sentence above the guideline range and did not mention bipolar diagnosis in its explanation; Donelli did not object to the adequacy of the explanation when asked by the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cunningham duty required addressing bipolar mitigation | Donelli argues the bipolar diagnosis was a principal mitigation argument. | Donelli contends the district court should have discussed the diagnosis as mitigating. | No Cunningham duty triggered; argument not properly framed as mitigation. |
| Whether Donelli waived Cunningham objection | Waiver occurs when the court asks for further elaboration and defendant does not object. | Donelli failed to object to the omission at close of sentencing. | Waived; no Cunningham error preserved on appeal. |
| Whether the bipolar diagnosis could have justified leniency if raised properly | Diagnosis could explain behavior and warrant leniency if properly argued. | Diagnosis was not developed as a mitigation argument. | Not a valid principal mitigation argument given the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (establishes Cunningham duty to address principal mitigation arguments)
- United States v. Vidal, 705 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2013) (principle of addressing meritorious mitigation arguments)
- United States v. Chapman, 694 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2012) (mitigation discussion requirements guidance)
- United States v. Gary, 613 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes duty to consider mitigation with merit)
- United States v. Cheek, 740 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2014) (mental characteristics as mitigation related to age/mental state)
- United States v. Annoreno, 713 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2013) (mental characteristics as potential mitigation)
- United States v. Durham, 645 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) (multiple cognitive deficits as mitigation considerations)
- United States v. Portman, 599 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2010) (age as a mitigation factor)
- United States v. Beier, 490 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2007) (personal experiences and characteristics as mitigation)
- United States v. Garcia-Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2013) (Garcia-Segura approach to Cunningham waiver and explanations)
- United States v. Castaldi, 743 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2014) (application of Cunningham after waiver)
- United States v. Garthus, 652 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (mental illness may lead to longer sentence if explained)