View Documents by Category:
- 8th Amendment 18
- ADA 19
- Armed Forces Court 1
- Behavioral Health 3
- CST 24
- Child Custody 11
- Civil Action 52
- Civil Commitment 28
- Civil Suit 3
- Competence 42
- Conditions of Confinement 8
- Confidentiality 9
- Criminal Defense 1
- DOJ 1
- Death Penalty 45
- Defense Counsel 25
- Discrimination 3
- Double Jeopardy 1
- Due Process 2
- Duty of Care 12
- Education 1
- Evaluation 3
- Excessive Force 12
- Firearms 5
- Fourth Circuit 18
- Guilty Plea 1
- HIPAA 6
- Immunity 29
- Ineffective Assistance 24
- Inmates 23
- Inpatient 13
- Insurance 17
- Intellectual Disability 34
- Interrogation 1
- Involuntary Commitment 26
- Involuntary Medication 32
- Jails and Prisons 27
- Jury Instructions 9
- Juveniles 30
- Law Enforcement 31
- Legislation 8
- Liability/Duty of Care 1
- MOT 1
- Medical Malpractice 1
- Mental Health 42
- Mental Health Experts 29
- Mental Health Providers 73
- Mental Health Treatment 1
- Mental Illness 3
- Military Court 1
Case Law
An inventory of Case Law Developments as recorded in issues of Developments in Mental Health Law.
Search for cases by key words:
Mental Health, Sentencing
United States v. Carlin, 712 F. App’x 365, (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Stephens, 699 F. App'x 343 (5th Cir. 2017)
United States v. Wesberry, 709 F. App’x 895 (10th Cir. 2017)
The following three cases each involved defendant challenges to the imposition of mental health treatment as part of their sentencing. The cases are presented here in brief because of their relatively similar, short opinions that do not present notable fact patterns or developments in jurisprudence.
United States v. Carlin, 712 F. App’x 365, (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Stephens, 699 F. App'x 343 (5th Cir. 2017).
Both Carlin and Stephens essentially concerned a misstatement of a condition of sentencing. In both cases, the court ordered that the defendant “participate in a mentalhealth program as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer,” thus impermissibly delegating sentencing authority to the probation officer. In both cases, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a modified sentence that imposed mental health treatment, with details of the treatment to be supervised by the probation officer.
United States v. Wesberry, 709 F. App’x 895 (10th Cir. 2017).
In Wesberry, the defendant challenged the imposition of mental health treatment as part of his sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, arguing that the condition was unreasonable because it bore no relation to the goals of the guidelines. The Tenth Circuit reviewed his claim for plain error because he had not challenged the condition in district court. The court found that there was no “well-settled” law supporting his challenge, thus there was no clear error to be found in the lower court’s sentencing decision. In addition, the court noted that the Guidelines’ policy statement recommends requiring participation in a mental health program if a court has reason, based on particularized findings, to believe the defendant is in need of psychological or psychiatric treatment; the court noted the district court’s reliance on presentence reports documenting Wesberry’s diagnoses and medications as meeting the requirement of particularized findings.