United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 2 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

54

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON

Opinion of the Court

vised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served by incarceration. The Court also observes that the statutory structure provides a means to address the equitable concerns that exist when an individual is incarcerated beyond the proper expiration of his prison term. The trial court, as it sees fit, may modify the individual's supervised release conditions, 3583(e)(2), or it may terminate his supervised release obligations after one year of completed service, 3583(e)(1). Pp. 56-60.

154 F. 3d 569, reversed and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Barbara McDowell argued the cause for the United States. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Waxman, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Richard A. Friedman.

Kevin M. Schad argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.*

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. An offender had been serving time in federal prison for multiple felonies when two of his convictions were declared invalid. As a result, he had served too much prison time and was at once set free, but a term of supervised release was yet to be served on the remaining convictions. The question becomes whether the excess prison time should be credited to the supervised release term, reducing its length. Bound by the text of the controlling statute, 18 U. S. C. 3624(e), we hold that the supervised release term remains unaltered.

Respondent Roy Lee Johnson was convicted in 1990 on two counts of possession with an intent to distribute controlled substances, 84 Stat. 1260, 21 U. S. C. 841(a), on two counts of use of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime, 18 U. S. C. 924(c) (1994 ed. and Supp. IV),

*Edward M. Chikofsky, Barbara E. Bergman, and Henry J. Bemporad filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007