In U.S. v. Nash, No. 05-11440 (Feb. 13, 2006), the Court agreed with the defendant that the district court erred in delegating to a probation officer the judicial task of determining whether he should participate in a mental health program, but otherwise affirmed the sentence.
Citing U.S. v. Heath, 419 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2005), the Court held invalid the condition of supervised release which delegated to the Probation Office to task of determining whether the defendant should participate in a mental health program. The Court noted that imposing sentence is an Article III court’s responsibility. Only the court, not the probation office, can decide whether the defendant should participate in mental health counseling.
The Court upheld the condition of supervised release which delegated to the Probation Office the task of approving the bank accounts Nash could open (Nash was convicted of fraud). The Court noted that this was merely a ministerial task. The Court also affirmed the condition which required Nash, subject to the probation office’s direction, to notify persons of the risk associated with her criminal history. The Court explained that this condition did not delegate unfettered discretion to the probation office, but merely found that the probation office would decide when notice was appropriate. The Court also rejected Nash’s argument that this condition was vague and overbroad. The Court found that this condition was reasonably related to the goal of preventing Nash’s future fraud.
