U.S. v. Johnson, Roy Lee (03/01/2000)

By: Chris Sewell, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether a federal criminal defendants term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.

Brief

In 1990, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan convicted Roy Lee Johnson of five separate offenses. Two counts related to cocaine possession and trafficking, and two counts for use of a firearm during a drug-related arrest. The other count against Johnson was for possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony.

For his crimes, Johnson was sentenced to approximately 14 years in prison, a sentence that included three concurrently running prison terms of approximately four years for the drug convictions, and two consecutive five-year terms for the use of a firearm convictions. Johnson was also sentenced to a three-year term of supervised release.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Johnsons conviction, but decided the trial judge erred in sentencing him to the consecutive five-year terms and in August 1994, vacated one.

Then in March 1996, Johnson filed a motion with the trial judge to have his remaining five-year sentence terminated. The basis of Johnsons motion was the 1995 Supreme Court decision in Bailey v. U.S., a case decided after Johnsons initial trial.

The Bailey decision redefined ""use"" of a firearm in drug-related arrests. In previous cases of its kind, courts used virtually synonymous definitions of ""use"" and ""possession."" The Supreme Court decided in Bailey that ""use"" of a firearm denoted active employment and made a clear distinction between ""use"" and ""possession.""

Using Bailey as a precedent, the trial judge found insufficient evidence to support Johnsons use of a firearm conviction and rescinded Johnsons remaining five-year prison term. Because Johnson had already served more time than his revised sentenced called for, the trial judge ordered his immediate release.

After his release, Johnson filed another motion to credit the excess two and one-half years he was erroneously incarcerated toward his three-year supervised release sentence. U.S. District Judge Horace Gilmore, who presided over Johnsons trial, denied his motion.

A divided panel of the 6th Circuit reversed, and credited Johnson with the extra time he spent in prison. The majority decided that Johnsons term of supervised release started ""the day he was entitled to be releasedÉrather than the day he walked out the prison door.""

The 6th Circuits decision was based largely on the conclusion that Congress had not considered retroactive invalidation of prison sentences when it drafted the statute on supervised release.

In dissent, Appeals Judge Ronald Lee Gilman argued that crediting excess prison time ran counter to the plain language set by Congress describing supervised release as commencing ""the day the person is released from imprisonment."" Gilman also observed that Congress recognized that supervised release ""does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned.""

The 6th Circuits opinion favoring Johnson further split the circuits on the issue of supervised release. The 1st, 5th and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeals have all ruled that a term of supervised release is initiated the moment a defendant physically walks out of prison. Conversely, the 9th Circuit, and now the 6th Circuit, define supervised release as beginning when a person should have been released from prison.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Sept. 10, 1999.

On March 1, 2000, a unanimous Court reversed and remanded, holding for the U.S. that a common sense reading of the statute, 18 U.S.C. Û 3624(e), dictates that the term of supervised release does not commence until an individual ""is released from imprisonment.""

Thus, supervised release does not run while an individual remains in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.