We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

WHEN TIME SERVED AIN’T GOOD ENOUGH

Steve Mitchell did 17 years on a 21-year Armed Career Criminal Act conviction before his sentencing court, applying Johnson v. United States, held that one of his three predicate crimes of violence was not violent at all. The District Court sentenced him to time served plus three years of supervised release, and cut him loose.

Steve appealed. Yeah, you read that right. He appealed the decision that set him free. But Steve’s claim was anything but frivolous: he argued that because his conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun (18 USC 922(g)) could not be enhanced by the ACCA, the maximum sentence was only 10 years, and the District Court should have resentenced him to 10 years, not time served (which worked out to 17 years). What Steve wanted, of course, was for the District Court to recognize that he had served seven years extra, and therefore cut him loose from supervised release, too.

Last week, the 6th Circuit agreed with Steve that his “time-served” corrected sentence is unlawful. Absent the ACCA enhancement, Steve could have received only a ten-year-maximum sentence. But when the district court corrected his sentence to remove the enhancement, it gave him a “time-served” — or 17-year – sentence. The Circuit said that sentence in excess of the statutory maximum is unlawful.

The appellate court remanded Steve’s case to the district court for a re-do that recognized (1) a time-served sentence that is equivalent to a term-of-months sentence above the statutory maximum is invalid, and (2) while a district court has the discretion to select appropriate proceedings for correcting a sentence, the corrected sentence must comply with substantive and procedural reasonableness.

The Circuit did not rule on the district court’s reimposition of 3 years’ supervised release, holding that “on remand, the district court should take the opportunity to provide an appropriate rationale for its supervised release decision.”

Who knows? Maybe the sentencing court will decide that Steve has suffered enough.

United States v. Mitchell, Case No. 17-5904 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root