120 S. Ct. 1114; 146 L. Ed. 2d 39; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 1735; 68 U.S.L.W. 4174; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1612; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 2217; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1079; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 131
Johnson was sentenced in federal court for multiple violations of federal criminal provisions. He was sentenced terms of imprisonment for the violations and, in addition, a three-year mandatory term of supervised release for the drug possession offenses. After he had served 2½ years in federal prison, two of his convictions, not including the drug possession convictions, were declared invalid; as a result, he had served too much prison time, which resulted in his being eligible for immediate release.[1]
He argued that his time in federal prison should be credited against his three years of supervised release. The District Court denied relief, and explained that (1) pursuant to 18 USCS 3624(e), the supervised release commenced upon the accused's actual release from incarceration, not before, and (2) granting the accused credit would undermine the United States Congress's aim of using supervised release to assist convicted felons in their transitions to community life. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1) accepted the accused's argument that his term of supervised release commenced when his lawful term of imprisonment expired, and (2) reversed the decision of the District Court (154 F3d 569).[2]
Opinion of the courtedit
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice Kennedy, reversed the original decision. Relying heavily upon the actual language in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), the Court found that a period of supervised release cannot commence until the prisoner is actually released from incarceration.[1] The Court construed the supervised release statute to unambiguously dictate the commencement of supervision upon release from custody. The Supreme Court found no need to resort to other subsections of the statute because:
1) the statute was unambiguous: a supervised release term did not commence until an accused was "released from imprisonment," and the ordinary and commonsense meaning of "release" was to be freed from confinement; 3624(e) also provided that (a) a term of supervised release came after imprisonment, once the prisoner was released by the Bureau of Prisons to the supervision of a probation officer, and (b) supervised release did not run while an individual remained in the custody of the Bureau.[3]
2) the same terminology was not used in the different subsections;
3) there was no express reference between the relevant statutory subsections.
Congress intended supervised release conditions to assist individuals in their transition to community life. Supervised release serves a rehabilitative end distinct from those served by incarceration. Id. at 59.[4]
When Congress provides exceptions in a statute, it does not follow that courts have authority to create others. The proper inference... is that Congress considered the issue of exceptions and, in the end, limited the statute to the ones set forth. Id. at 58.
However, Justice Kennedy noted that the inmate could seek equitable relief in the district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) (modification of conditions of supervised release) or 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (trial court may terminate supervised release after expiration of one year if warranted by the defendant's conduct).
Referencesedit
^ ab"United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (2000)". Justia Law. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
^"154 F.3d - Volume 154 of the Federal Reporter, 3rd Series". Justia Law. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
^"United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53 (2000)". Justia Law. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
^"United States v. Johnson." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-1696. Accessed 31 Jan. 2023.
External linksedit
Text of United States v. Johnson, 529U.S. 53 (2000) is available from:JustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
January 01, 1970
united, states, johnson, 2000, other, uses, united, states, johnson, confused, with, johnson, united, states, 2000, united, states, johnson, 2000, united, states, supreme, court, case, united, states, johnsonsupreme, court, united, statesargued, december, 1999. For other uses see United States v Johnson Not to be confused with Johnson v United States 2000 United States v Johnson 529 U S 53 2000 was a United States Supreme Court case United States v JohnsonSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued December 8 1999Decided March 1 2000Full case nameUnited States v Roy Lee JohnsonCitations529 U S 53 more 120 S Ct 1114 146 L Ed 2d 39 2000 U S LEXIS 1735 68 U S L W 4174 2000 Cal Daily Op Service 1612 2000 Daily Journal DAR 2217 2000 Colo J C A R 1079 13 Fla L Weekly Fed S 131Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerCase opinionMajorityKennedy joined by unanimous Johnson was sentenced in federal court for multiple violations of federal criminal provisions He was sentenced terms of imprisonment for the violations and in addition a three year mandatory term of supervised release for the drug possession offenses After he had served 2 years in federal prison two of his convictions not including the drug possession convictions were declared invalid as a result he had served too much prison time which resulted in his being eligible for immediate release 1 He argued that his time in federal prison should be credited against his three years of supervised release The District Court denied relief and explained that 1 pursuant to 18 USCS 3624 e the supervised release commenced upon the accused s actual release from incarceration not before and 2 granting the accused credit would undermine the United States Congress s aim of using supervised release to assist convicted felons in their transitions to community life However the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1 accepted the accused s argument that his term of supervised release commenced when his lawful term of imprisonment expired and 2 reversed the decision of the District Court 154 F3d 569 2 Opinion of the court editA unanimous U S Supreme Court per Justice Kennedy reversed the original decision Relying heavily upon the actual language in 18 U S C 3624 e the Court found that a period of supervised release cannot commence until the prisoner is actually released from incarceration 1 The Court construed the supervised release statute to unambiguously dictate the commencement of supervision upon release from custody The Supreme Court found no need to resort to other subsections of the statute because 1 the statute was unambiguous a supervised release term did not commence until an accused was released from imprisonment and the ordinary and commonsense meaning of release was to be freed from confinement 3624 e also provided that a a term of supervised release came after imprisonment once the prisoner was released by the Bureau of Prisons to the supervision of a probation officer and b supervised release did not run while an individual remained in the custody of the Bureau 3 2 the same terminology was not used in the different subsections 3 there was no express reference between the relevant statutory subsections Congress intended supervised release conditions to assist individuals in their transition to community life Supervised release serves a rehabilitative end distinct from those served by incarceration Id at 59 4 When Congress provides exceptions in a statute it does not follow that courts have authority to create others The proper inference is that Congress considered the issue of exceptions and in the end limited the statute to the ones set forth Id at 58 However Justice Kennedy noted that the inmate could seek equitable relief in the district court pursuant to 18 U S C 3583 e 2 modification of conditions of supervised release or 18 U S C 3583 e 1 trial court may terminate supervised release after expiration of one year if warranted by the defendant s conduct References edit a b United States v Johnson 529 U S 53 2000 Justia Law Retrieved January 31 2023 154 F 3d Volume 154 of the Federal Reporter 3rd Series Justia Law Retrieved January 31 2023 United States v Johnson 529 U S 53 2000 Justia Law Retrieved January 31 2023 United States v Johnson Oyez www oyez org cases 1999 98 1696 Accessed 31 Jan 2023 External links editText of United States v Johnson 529 U S 53 2000 is available from Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title United States v Johnson 2000 amp oldid 1175151624, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
