[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-13664 FEBRUARY 3, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00112-CR-3-LAC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICKEY L. SKYLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(February 3, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mickey L. Skyles appeals his sentence for convictions of driving under the
influence and leaving the scene of an accident with injuries on federal park land,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13, and Fla. Stat. § 316.193 and § 316.027. At
sentencing, the district court ordered two special conditions of supervised release
that gave the probation office the discretion to require drug or alcohol treatment
and/or to require mental health counseling and treatment. On appeal, Skyles argues
that the district court committed plain error by delegating a judicial function to the
probation officer, specifically, the decision of whether Skyles would participate in
the treatment programs. Skyles points out that in United States v. Heath, 419 F.3d
1312 (11th Cir. 2005), we held that this precise action was plain error. The
government concedes that there was plain error regarding this issue.
When an issue was not raised before the district court, we review for plain
error. Heath, 419 F.3d at 1314. Plain error exists if there was “(1) error, (2) that is
plain, and (3) affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate
court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the
error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Id. (quotations and citation omitted). To show that the error affected
substantial rights, a defendant must show that the error “affected the outcome of
the district court proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted). A violation of Article III
of the United States Constitution seriously affects the “fairness, integrity, or public
2
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
In Heath, we held that leaving the decision of whether a defendant will
participate in a mental health treatment program to a probation officer is plain
error. Id. at 1315. We noted that the error was plain because it was clear under
then-current law. Id. We stated that, in previous cases, this Court has held that
delegating a judicial function is a violation of Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
Id. (citing United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)). Also,
we pointed out that all the circuits are in agreement that delegating to a probation
office the authority to decide whether a defendant will participate in a treatment
program is a delegation of judicial function, and therefore, a violation of Article III
of the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 1315. We held that without the error in delegating
the treatment decision, the district court would have decided whether the defendant
needed treatment and incorporated that decision into his sentence. Id. at 1316.
Therefore, delegating the treatment decision to a probation office affected
substantial rights. Id. Lastly, we held that the violation of Article III in this
context meets the fourth prong of plain error analysis. Id.
In this case, Heath is controlling. Imposing the treatment conditions on
Skyles was plain error that affected substantial rights and seriously affected the
fairness of the judicial proceedings. We vacate and remand Skyles’s sentence for
3
the limited purpose of correcting the delegation of treatment programs to the
discretion of the probation office.
VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
4