Case o' The Week: Deep in the Heart of Texas - Aubry Johnson and Primary Jurisdiction for State and Federal Custody
Aubry Johnson v. Gill, 2018 WL
943991 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2018), decision available here.
Players:
Decision by Judge Ikuta, joined by Judge Tallman.
Dissent by visiting Chief D.J.
Oliver.
Facts: In Texas state court, Johnson received a long sentence
for robbery. Id. at *2. While he was
still in state custody, the Feds brought him to district court on different
charges. Id. Johnson got another federal
sentence – to be run consecutive to the Texas term. Id.
The Sheriff of Dallas County then began a remarkable
chain of mistakes.
In August 2009, while Johnson was still
serving his state sentence, the Sheriff mistakenly released him to the U.S. Marshal.
Realizing their mistake, the Sheriff asked for Johnson back from the Feds. Id.
“A short while later . . . the Dallas County
Sheriff's Department informed the Marshals Service that Johnson had completed
his state sentence and that the department intended to release Johnson unless
the Marshals Service took custody of him. On December 14, the Dallas County Sheriff's
Department transferred Johnson to the Marshals Service. This was also a
mistake.” Id.
Johnson finally finished his state sentence,
but instead of then releasing him onto
the federal detainer to finally start his federal term, the Sheriff mistakingly
released him altogether. Id. at *3.
Johnson was later re-arrested, started his federal
term, and filed a § 2241 petition contesting the BOP’s time calcs.
Issue(s): “Johnson objected to [the BOP’s] calculation; he
argued that his federal sentence commenced on one of the occasions when the
state erroneously transferred him to the Marshals Service . . . . Therefore,
Johnson contends, he is entitled to credit against his federal sentence for the
time period between August 2009 and June 2011, even though the state already
gave him credit for this same time period.” Id.
at *3.
Held: “Consistent with
our implicit conclusion in Taylor,
and with the many decades of judicial interpretation of § 3585 and its
predecessors, we therefore interpret ‘custody’ in § 3585(a) as ‘legal custody,’
meaning that the federal government has both physical custody of the defendant
and the primary jurisdiction necessary to enforce the federal sentence.
Accordingly, under § 3585(a), ‘[a] sentence to a term of imprisonment commences
on the date’ that the federal government has primary jurisdiction over a
defendant who is ‘received in custody awaiting transportation to’ the official
detention facility.” Id. at *5.
“Because a state’s transfer
of temporary control of the defendant ‘extends no further than it is intended
to extend,’ . . . and a state that mistakenly transferred a prisoner to the
federal government lacked the intent to surrender primary jurisdiction, such a
mistaken transfer does not constitute a relinquishment of primary jurisdiction.
If the state retains primary jurisdiction, the federal sentence does not
commence pursuant to § 3585. Therefore, a prisoner's federal sentence does not
commence when the state mistakenly transfers a prisoner to the federal government.”
Id. at *6.
Of Note: In a compelling dissent, DJ Oliver worries that this
new “primary jurisdiction” rule will unfairly punish inmates who are
mistakingly transferred between sovereigns. Id.
at *9.
Judge Ikuta tries to assuage that
fear with assurances that the district court can then “fashion remedies.” Id. at *8. Cold comfort for inmates faced
with bungling jailers, but seize this slim reed if clients are cheated of custodial
credits.
How to Use:
For federal clients who owe state time, determining which sovereign has “primary
jurisdiction” is critical when advising of custodial exposure. Aubry Johnson gives a long and detailed
explanation (and some fuzzy new rules) on how to answer that question -- it is
now the place to start for this analysis.
For Further
Reading: Whither the Ninth’s two Trump
nominees? Hawaiian candidate Mark Bennett should start shopping for robes.
Oregon candidate and former Judge O’Scannlain
clerk Ryan Bounds is having a rougher go of it, though his confirmation appears
to be moving forward.
For an interesting analysis on these judicial
developments from another O’Scannlain clerk, see Above the Law article here.
Image of Dallas
County Sheriff badge from https://www.facebook.com/Dallas.Sheriff.Dept/
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender Northern District of California. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
1 Comments:
ASS..WR.WB.SAYA PAK RESKY TKI BRUNAY DARUSALAM INGIN BERTERIMA KASIH BANYAK KEPADA EYANG WORO MANGGOLO,YANG SUDAH MEMBANTU ORANG TUA SAYA KARNA SELAMA INI ORANG TUA SAYA SEDANG TERLILIT HUTANG YANG BANYAK,BERKAT BANTUAN AKI SEKARAN ORANG TUA SAYA SUDAH BISA MELUNASI SEMUA HUTAN2NYA,DAN SAWAH YANG DULUNYA SEMPAT DI GADAIKAN SEKARAN ALHAMDULILLAH SUDAH BISA DI TEBUS KEMBALI,ITU SEMUA ATAS BANTUAN EYANG WORO MANGGOLO MEMBERIKAN ANGKA RITUALNYA KEPADA KAMI DAN TIDAK DI SANGKA SANGKA TERNYATA BERHASIL,BAGI ANDA YANG INGIN DIBANTU SAMA SEPERTI KAMI SILAHKAN HUBUNGI NO HP EYANG WORO MANGGOLO (0823-9177-2208) JANGAN ANDA RAGU ANGKA RITUAL EYANG WORO MANGGOLO SELALU TEPAT DAN TERBUKTI INI BUKAN REKAYASA SAYA SUDAH MEMBUKTIKAN NYA TERIMAH KASIH
NO HP EYANG WORO MANGGOLO (0823-9177-2208)
BUTUH ANGKA GHOIB HASIL RTUAL EYANG WORO MANGGOLO
DIJAMIN TIDAK MENGECEWAKAN ANDA APAPUN ANDA MINTA INSYA ALLAH PASTI DIKABULKAN BERGAUNLAH SECEPATNYA BERSAMA KAMI JANGAN SAMPAI ANDA MENYESAL
angka;GHOIB: singapura
angka;GHOIB: hongkong
angka;GHOIB; malaysia
angka;GHOIB; toto magnum
angka”GHOIB; laos…
angka”GHOIB; macau
angka”GHOIB; sidney
angka”GHOIB: vietnam
angka”GHOIB: korea
angka”GHOIB: brunei
angka”GHOIB: china
angka”GHOIB: thailand
Post a Comment
<< Home