United States v. Michael, No. 17-3346 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseIn 2016, Michael, age 35, pled guilty to possession of child pornography. The court determined that his sentencing guideline range was 97-120 months’ imprisonment. The prosecutor recommended a term of 40 months. A general and forensic psychiatrist had interviewed Michael in 2014, had interviewed Michael’s parents, and had administered psychological tests; he opined that: Michael has Asperger's Syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder, and that his psychosexual and psychological development plateaued around early teens. Before sentencing, Michael had been actively involved in a sex offender treatment program. The director of associates at that program testified that Michael’s continued participation in the program caused him to believe that Michael was at a lower risk of recidivism. The court imposed a five-year term of probation with detailed conditions, varying from the guidelines because it was “the best solution for [Michael’s] Asperger’s problem and mental status.” In 2017, Michael was arrested for alleged violations of probation conditions relating to possession of materials involving pornographic/erotic or sexually explicit conduct; participation in sex offender counseling; use of online access without his probation officer’s approval; and untruthful responses to the probation officer’s questions. Michael admitted to each violation. A new judge imposed a 96-month sentence. The Eighth Circuit vacated the sentence. There is no indication the court considered the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements before imposing sentence; it is unclear whether the court was sufficiently informed about the case. The court failed to explain its decision to impose a sentence seven years beyond the guidelines range.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. In this case where the court revoked probation and sentenced defendant to a sentence which initially could have been imposed, there is no indication the court considered or weighed the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission before imposing sentence; this court's concerns as to whether the sentencing court was sufficiently informed about defendant's case combined with its failure to explain its decision to impose a sentence seven years beyond the guidelines range leaves this court with an evidentiary record which does not support the sentence imposed; the sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing. [ November 29, 2018
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.