Fred Sisto | Criminal Attorney | Ocean and Monmouth County

Call Us Today
732-898-3232

  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    ▼
    • Drug Crimes
      ▼
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      ▼
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      ▼
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      ▼
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    ▼
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      ▼
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    ▼
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
  • Home
  • Criminal Defense Services
    • Drug Crimes
      • Drug Manufacturing
      • Intent to Distribute Narcotics
      • Prescription Drug Crimes
      • Leader of Narcotics Trafficking Network
    • Weapons Charges
      • Prohibited Weapons and Devices
      • Manufacture, Transport, etc. of Weapons
      • Illegal Possession of a Gun
      • Possession of Weapons for Unlawful Purposes
    • Expungements
    • Theft Attorney
    • Violent Crimes
      • Robbery/Burglary
      • Manslaughter
      • Extortion
      • Assault
      • Sexual Offenses
    • Arson
    • DUI / DWI
      • Alcohol DUI
      • Drug DUI
      • Refusing a Breath Test
    • Driving with A Suspended License
    • Property Forfeiture
    • Anti-Drug Profiteering
    • Juvenile Delinquency
  • Español / Spanish Speaking Attorney
  • About
    • Testimonials
    • Defending Cases In
      • Monmouth County
      • Ocean County
  • Blog
  • Contact
    • Receive a Call From Fred
  • DUI Checkpoint Alerts
  • Results
  • Payment Options
Home >> Drug Court Resentencings and the Sixth Amendment (Part 6)

April 20, 2020 by Fred Sisto

Drug Court Resentencings and the Sixth Amendment (Part 6)

The Appellate panel continued in relevant part: Under federal law, the period of incarceration and ensuing period of supervised release are deemed to be “distinct aspects” of punishment. United States v. Work, 409 F.3d 484, 489 (1st Cir. 2005). Accordingly, “courts routinely have held that the combined sentence of years of imprisonment plus years of supervised release may exceed the statutory maximum number of years of imprisonment authorized by the substantive statute applicable to the crime of conviction.” Ibid.

If defendant’s expansive interpretation of Apprendi were correct, the federal statutory scheme upheld in Work and revisited in Haymond would run afoul of the Sixth Amendment unless time spent on supervised release before revocation were treated the same as time spent in prison. However, § 3583(e)(3) expressly provides to the contrary that the new sentence following revocation of supervised release is imposed “without credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision.” It bears emphasis that the plurality made no mention of any constitutional concern with this statutory feature, even as the Court struck down a specific mandatory minimum sentencing provision of that statute on Apprendi grounds. The failure to allude to any constitutional problem with the statutory feature that treats time on supervised release so differently from time spent in prison is telling. In our view this confirms that the Court never contemplated that Apprendi principles might possibly extend to forms of punishment other than minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment.

We find further support for our conclusion that the Supreme Court never meant for Apprendi to apply to non-custodial forms of punishment in the plurality’s response to concerns expressed by the dissenting Justices. The dissent complained, “[t]he plurality opinion appears to have been carefully crafted for the purpose of laying the groundwork for later decisions of much broader scope.” 588 U.S. at __, 139 S. Ct. at 2386 (Alito, J., dissenting). The plurality responded to those concerns about the future expansion of the Apprendi doctrine, noting:

Besides, even if our opinion could be read to cast doubts on § 3583(e) and its consistency with Apprendi, the practical consequences of a holding to that effect would not come close to fulfilling the dissent’s apocalyptic prophecy. In most cases (including this one), combining a defendant’s initial and post-revocation sentences issued under § 3583(e) will not yield a term of imprisonment that exceeds the statutory maximum term of imprisonment the jury has authorized for the original crime of conviction. [588 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. at 2384 (plurality opinion) (emphases added).]

Notably, in this pointed discussion of the potential breadth of Apprendi‘s reach, the plurality referred to the combination of two periods of incarceration, not to the combination of a period of incarceration and a period of supervised release when describing a composite sentence that might conceivably exceed the “statutory maximum.” The point simply is that even as the plurality and dissenting Justices argued vociferously about the prospects for expanding the Apprendi doctrine, no one raised the possibility of an expansion of the type and to the degree defendant urges us to accept in this appeal. In sum, we read the Haymond plurality and dissenting opinions to be consistent with our conclusion that Apprendi, Blakely, Alleyne, and Ring focus exclusively on prison sentences and simply do not apply to non-custodial probationary sentences.

A counter to the panel’s analysis here is that courts are not supposed to reach constitutional issues unless they are required to in deciding the case. That would explain why the Haymond Court did not address Apprendi’s application to non-custodial sentences.

Filed Under: Blog, Criminal Law, Drug Crime, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Testimonials

Fred is a stickler for detail and communicates with clients very, very well. He is smart and astute. I would recommend him unconditionally.

Tom O   

I would highly recommend Mr. Sisto. He is very insightful and proficient, yet still down to Earth. Fred is great at communicating and breaking down the facts. But most importantly, he excels at getting results.

Bill K   

Thanks to Fred I have no criminal record whatsoever.

Luke A   

Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation.

Raumelis R   
See More Testimonials

Recent Posts

  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 2)
  • Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 1)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 2)
  • Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 1)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 4)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 3)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 2)
  • Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 1)

Recent Speaking Engagement

Site Disclaimer

Attorney Referral Fees

Frederick P Sisto has earned Lawyer Legion's recognition for Community Leadership
 
Top Criminal Defense Attorney in Brick

Law Office of Frederick P. Sisto

Point Pleasant Office*:
302 Hawthorne Ave, Suite 1
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Brick Township Office*:
223 Drum Point Road, Suite 1
Brick Township, NJ 08723

Sea Girt Office*:
2150 NJ-35,
Suite 225
Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Phone: 732-898-3232
Fax: 201-508-3393
*Office visits by appointment only.

Representing clients throughout all court jurisdictions of New Jersey.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, NO ASPECT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

en English
en Englishes Spanish