November 2, 2018
SCOTUS grants cert on another supervised release issue (and a Batson issue in a capital case)
The Supreme Court last week, as noted here, granted cert in United States v. Haymond, No. 17-1672, an interesting case from the Tenth Circuit in which the defendant prevailed on the claim that the procedures used to sentence him following his supervised release violation was unconstitutional. Today, as reflected in this order, the Court granted cert on another issue related to supervised release through a grant in Mont v. United States, No. 17-8995. The petitioner’s cert petition posed this “Question Presented”:
Whether a statute directed to the administration of imprisoned individuals serves as authority to alter or suspend the running of a criminal sentence of supervised release, when such “tolling” is without judicial action, and requires the term “imprisonment” as used in the administrative statute, to include pretrial detention prior to an adjudication of guilt. Is a district court required to exercise its jurisdiction in order to suspend the running of a supervised release sentence as directed under 18 U.S.C. §3583(i) prior to expiration of the term of supervised release, when a supervised releasee is in pretrial detention, or does 18 U.S.C. §3624(e) toll the running of supervised release while in pretrial detention?
Seeking (unsuccessfully) to avoid a cert grant, the government’s brief in opposition to cert framed the issue of the case this way:
Whether a period of supervised release for one offense is tolled under 18 U.S.C. 3624(e) during a period of pretrial confinement that upon conviction is credited toward a defendant’s term of imprisonment for another offense.
In addition to some civil grants, the Court also granted cert on a capital case, Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17-9572, but limited the grant in this way:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in how it applied Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), in this case.
November 2, 2018 at 05:02 PM | Permalink
Comments
The Flowers case is an extreme travesty and I do hope the Supreme Court gives maximum smackdown to the State.
Posted by: USPO-Retired | Nov 3, 2018 6:40:38 PM