United States v. Deegan

605 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D secretly gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom of her home on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. The baby was alive and breathing when he was delivered. D had kept her pregnancy hidden, and no other adult was present at the time of the delivery. D's three other minor children were in the home, but they were unaware of the birth. D fed, cleaned, and dressed the newborn boy, and then placed him in a basket. She then left the house with her three other children, intentionally leaving the baby alone without food, water, or a caregiver. D did not return to her home for approximately two weeks. When she returned, she found the baby dead in the basket where she had left him. She put his remains in a suitcase and deposited the suitcase in a rural ditch area near her residence. D admitted that the baby had been born alive. She stated that she intentionally left him alone in her home, knowing that he would die. When asked why she did so, D responded that she was unable to care for a fourth child, neither she nor her common-law husband were employed, and her husband spent what little money they did have to purchase drugs. D agreed to plead guilty to one count of second-degree murder. The sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of D's offense provided for an advisory sentence of eight to ten years' imprisonment for second-degree murder. The court formally notified the parties that it was 'contemplating an upward departure from the applicable Sentencing Guideline range,' based on USSG § 5K2.8, which provides for an increased sentence where 'the defendant's conduct was unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the victim.' At the sentencing hearing on May 18, 2008, the district court adopted the sentencing guideline calculation in the PSR. The court agreed with the probation office that the vulnerable-victim enhancement was warranted and that D's advisory range was 121 to 151 months' imprisonment. After calling Dr. Resnick to testify about his report and hearing arguments from counsel and testimony from D herself, the court sentenced D to 121 months' imprisonment. D appealed and argued that the sentence of 121 months' imprisonment is unreasonable, because the advisory guideline for second-degree murder is not based on empirical data and national experience, and because the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to comply with the statutory purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).