Opinion ID: 78202
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Presentation of Victim Impact Evidence at Sentencing

Text: Horsfall next contends that the government breached its obligation not to recommend an upward departure by calling his daughter to testify and introducing the victim impact statements at sentencing. This victim impact evidence generally revealed the dramatic and long-lasting effects of sexual abuse and explained how viewing child pornography incentivized its production. However, the government's presentation of this evidence did not expressly violate its obligation not to recommend an upward departure, as the government stated at sentencing that it was not recommending an upward departure, but was rather presenting the evidence in order to support a sentence at the high-end of the applicable guideline range. Moreover, the presentation of the victim impact evidence fell within the terms of the plea agreement, which authorized the government to inform the Court ... of all facts pertinent to the sentencing process, including all relevant information concerning the defendant and his background. Indeed, Horsfall's daughter testified about how Horsfall sexually abused her at a young age, which goes to Horsfall's history and characteristics, a factor that is pertinent to the sentencing process under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Further, both her testimony and the victim impact statements addressed the factors under § 3553(a)(2)(A)the need for the court's sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense as they described the seriousness and long-lasting effects of sexual abuse and child pornography. In addition, the victims' viewpoints were generally pertinent to the sentencing process, as the government was obligated by statute to ensure that these views were presented at sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4), (c)(1) (requiring the government to use its best efforts to ensure, inter alia, that crime victims are reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving... sentencing). Our decisions establish that government did not violate the plea agreement under these circumstances. Because the agreement permitted the government to introduce such information and the government did not explicitly oppose a sentence within the guideline range, the government did not violate the plea agreement. See United States v. Levy, 374 F.3d 1023, 1030-32 (11th Cir.2004) (holding that the government did not breach the plea agreement where it provided factual information about the defendant's offenses, because nothing in the agreement prevented the government from providing such information and the government fulfilled its obligation to recommend a particular sentence), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 545 U.S. 1101, 125 S.Ct. 2542, 162 L.Ed.2d 272 (2005), affirmed, 416 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.2005). In United States v. Carrazana, 921 F.2d 1557, 1569 (11th Cir.1991), the plea agreement prohibited the government from recommending a sentence, but permitted it to inform the court of all facts relevant to the sentencing process. At sentencing, the government, in effect, criticized the probation officer's recommended 20-year sentence on the ground that the defendant was the leader of the criminal enterprise. Id. Nonetheless, we held that this conduct did not breach the plea agreement because it was relevant to the sentencing process, and the government never agreed that it would refrain from characterizing the defendant as such. Id.; see also Boatner, 966 F.2d at 1578 (The solemnization of a plea agreement does not preclude the government from disclosing pertinent information to the sentencing court.). The precedent supports the proposition that the government does not breach a plea agreement where the agreement authorizes the government to provide certain factual information, and the government does not expressly violate another one of its obligations. [1] Thus, in this case, the government's presentation of the victim impact evidence did not breach the plea agreement because the government reserved the right to present such evidence and did not recommend an upward departure.