Decker Bradburn
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Defense
    • DUI Defense
    • Personal Injury & Civil Defense
  • About
  • Blog
  • Case Results
  • Contact
Select Page

Appeals Court: No lifetime supervised release for drug traffickers

by Decker Bradburn, Attorneys at Law | Jun 23, 2017 | Drug Crimes

In July 2010, the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued a report on the federal supervised release program, which is similar to parole. The main purpose of the program, the report said, is “to facilitate the reintegration of federal prisoners back into the community.”

In other words, supervised release is not meant as a form of punishment, even when a judge feels a convicted defendant’s sentence isn’t harsh enough. A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of appeals based a unanimous ruling on that principle early this week. The Second Circuit covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont, while Pennsylvania is in the Third. However, the principle is likely to be upheld in any federal circuit.

The case involved two men who were convicted in 2003 of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, violent crimes and attempted murder. The alleged ringleader was also convicted of murder. They were sentenced to life in prison.

About 10 years later, however, a key cooperating witness changed his story. Not only did he partially recant the allegations he had made against the men, but he also admitted having received a benefit from the government in exchange for his testimony.

From life imprisonment to life on supervisory release

That change in circumstances resulted in the men receiving a new plea deal. The federal prosecutor agreed to drop the most serious counts. After negotiations, the men accepted a deal that could result in a maximum of 30 years behind bars.

The federal judge sentenced them to the top of the available range, which was within her discretion. Then, however, she went further. After they had served their time, they would be put on supervised release for the rest of their lives.

The Second Circuit suspected the lifetime term of supervised release was not intended to help the men reintegrate into the community. Nor was it likely to be an effective way to meet other lawful goals like reducing recidivism or increasing public safety.

Naturally, the panel wrote, trial courts must weigh the seriousness of the defendants’ offenses when sentencing and applying mandatory considerations. “But when a supervised release term is inflected with retributive interests – as appears may have been the case here – the district court commits procedural error and the supervised release term cannot stand.”

Supervised release “is not a punishment in lieu of incarceration.”

Recent Posts

  • Magic mushrooms still transport you to Pennsylvania prisons
  • Driving while hungover can be just as dangerous
  • 4 common college student offenses
  • PA’s new ‘Clean Slate’ bill makes record sealing easier
  • Supreme Court: Police need a warrant to track cellphone locations

Archives

  • May 2019
  • January 2019
  • October 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016

Categories

  • blog
  • Criminal Defense
  • Drug Crimes
  • Drunk Driving
  • Firm News
  • Probation and Parole Violations

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

Schedule A Confidential Consultation

Decker Bradburn, Attorneys at Law

233 Easterly Parkway
Suite 103
State College, PA 16801

Map & Directions

Toll Free: 800-208-9980
Phone: 814-470-8023
Fax: 814-826-2964
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
Review Us

© 2019 Decker Bradburn, Attorneys at Law. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters