FindLaw > Criminal Law Summaries > United States v. Johnson

U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES — SUPERVISED RELEASE: EFFECT OF EXCESS INCARCERATION ON START TIME

Case: United States v. Johnson

Issue: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), does the term of a defendant’s supervised release begin upon his actual release from prison or on the date when he should have been released (in accordance with post-conviction reductions in his sentence)?

Facts: Respondent Roy Lee Johnson was convicted in 1990 of multiple felonies and sentenced to three concurrent 51-month terms, followed by two consecutive terms of 60 months -- 171 months in all. In addition, Johnson received a mandatory three year term of supervised release. His sentence was modified to 111 months in 1994 after the federal appellate court ruled that he could only be sentenced to one consecutive 60 month term.

In 1996, two of Johnson’s underlying convictions (which supported his original 60 month consecutive sentences) were vacated, and his sentence was accordingly modified once more, this time to 51 months plus the original three years of supervised release. As he had already served longer than 51 months, he was immediately released and his term of supervised release began. Johnson filed a motion to reduce his term of supervised release by 2.5 years, the amount of excess time he served in prison. The district court denied this motion, but the United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed.

Holding: Under the plain wording of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), supervised release begins on the actual date the prisoner is released from incarceration, not the date he should have been released.

Reasoning: The statute authorizing the use of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. §3624(e), states that a supervised release term commences when an individual "is released from imprisonment." It is clear that the word "release" in the context of imprisonment means to be freed from confinement. Therefore, the plain language of the statute states that a supervised release term commences on the day the defendant is actually released from prison. This must hold even if he is wrongfully detained, the Court unanimously ruled in an opinion written by Justice Kennedy.

In some circumstances, the statue does allow for a concurrent running of prison sentences and supervised release. However, this is only allowed for prison terms less than 30 days in length. The Court has no authority to expand this exception.

This interpretation of the statute is consistent with Congress’s intent. Supervised release fulfills a rehabilitative end, seeking to ease the transition from prison life to freedom. The objectives of the statute, therefore, would be thwarted if "excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release."

Finally, equitable concerns surrounding an individual who has served longer in prison than he rightfully should have are addressed in the statute itself. A trial court has the authority to modify an individual’s conditions of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) and may terminate supervised release obligations after one year pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) if "it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice."