Revocation of supervised release not equal to termination of the release
By Jonathan Byrne
US v. Winfield: A supervised release revocation sentencing here occurred over the course of two bifurcated hearings, the first part of which occurred in May 2010 dealing with the technical violations (i.e., charges not related to the commission of some state offenses during the appellant?s supervised release), and the second occurred in September 2010, following the resolution of the appellant?s substantive violations in state court. At the May 2010 hearing, the district court imposed a 12-month sentence on Winfield for his technical violations, e.g. failing to follow his probation officer?s instructions, failing to work regularly, and twice testing positive for cocaine. Winfield?s probation officer had filed a petition for violations of the terms of Winfield?s supervised release in October 2009 on the technical violation behavior...continue to full post
Blakely, Booker & Supervised Release Revocation In United States v. Work, No. 04-2172 (1st Cir. June 3, 2005) defendant-appellant argued "that the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), applies to the revocation of supervised release and the consequent imposition of additional prison time...