United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EARLY
TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE (DKT. NO. 96)
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
April 26, 2001, Judge Clevert sentenced the defendant to
serve 235 months imprisonment, followed by three years of
supervised release. Dkt. No. 65. On October 8, 2015, Judge
Clevert entered an amended judgment, reducing the term of the
defendant's imprisonment to 120 months followed by three
years of supervised release. Dkt. No. 87. This reduction made
the defendant eligible for immediate release, and he began
serving his term of thirty-six months of supervised release
the next day-October 9, 2015. Id.; see also
Dkt. No. 88 at 1. On April 12, 2016, the court held a hearing
on the conditions of the defendant's supervised release.
Dkt. No. 93. The court commented on the defendant's
unhealthy relationship with his girlfriend, Ms. Johnson, but
instead of revoking the defendant's supervised release,
the court modified the defendant's conditions to include
continuing anger management treatment with the probation
office and a prohibition against residing with Ms. Johnson.
Id. The defendant's supervised release term is
scheduled to expire on October 9, 2018. The defendant has
served two years of his three-year term.
August 7, 2017, the defendant, through counsel, filed a
motion asking the court to terminate his supervised release.
Dkt. No. 96. The motion asserts that the defendant's life
has changed dramatically since he appeared in court in April
of 2016. Id. The defendant states that on Memorial
Day 2016, he was shot and sustained injuries. As a result, he
spends his time focusing on recovering mentally and
physically from his trauma. Id. He also states that
“[h]e is no longer in the same
relationship”-presumably with Ms. Johnson- and that he
is applying for disability benefits. Id. The
defendant opines that “there isn't much point to
continued supervision, ” because he overserved his
sentence substantially and thus could not be sent back to
prison if ever he were revoked, and because the probation
office currently not providing him with significant services.
Id. at 2.
government objected to the defendant's request. Dkt. No.
97. The government agrees that “[the defendant] has a
compelling argument to terminate supervised release”
and that “there is no is no threat of incarceration if
he does not follow the rules of supervision[, ]” but it
advocates that his supervision continue. Id. The
prosecutor points to the defendant's violent criminal
history, particularly his history of violence-sometimes
extreme- against women. Id. The government also
notes that in February 2016-after the defendant began his
supervision-police arrested him on allegations that he had
threatened to beat his girlfriend. Id.
the government provides details of the Memorial Day shooting.
Id. The government says that, on May 29, 2016,
“[the defendant] was at the same girlfriend's
family gathering and the two argued. [The defendant] then
left the gathering and came back with his cousin. [The
defendant] was shot four times when he returned to the
gathering.” Id. at 2. Based on these facts,
the government argues that, while the defendant's contact
with his supervising agent has become congenial since the
shooting, the defendant's past conduct has been violent
and variable for his whole life. Id. The government
argues that the continued support that the defendant receives
from his supervising agent provides some of the only
stability he has in his life. Id.
does the probation office support the defendant's
request. Dkt. No. 99. The probation office's report
states that the defendant has maintained a stable residence
since April 2016, that he has attended all appointments with
his probation officer, and that there has been no indication
of recent drug use or contacts with law enforcement officers.
Id. at 2. In this regard, the probation office's
report corroborates the defendant's motion. The probation
office, however, also corroborates the government's
statements regarding the May 2016 shooting. The probation
report says that the defendant fought with his
girlfriend's family because he was not happy with what
she was wearing at the party. Id. The
girlfriend's son then shot the defendant four times.
Id. Probation agrees that the defendant has been
compliant since he was shot, but expresses the hope that
continued supervision might help cement that recent
court is pleased to hear that the defendant is no longer in
the relationship that has involved so much violence and
strife. The court is also glad that the defendant has been
compliant with the terms of his supervision, and has worked
to reach out and develop a rapport with his probation
officer, since the May 2016 shooting. The court commends him
on these improvements. The court understands that if the
court were to revoke the defendant's release in the next
year, the court could not impose a sentence of incarceration,
and that he is not under intensive supervision. But the court
agrees with the government and the probation office that
early termination is not appropriate. First, as both the
government and probation note, early termination of
supervised release is unusual. Courts generally grant such
requests in extraordinary cases, when defendants have gone
above and beyond the requirements of their supervised
release. In this case, the defendant did not do well the
first year or so he was on release, and while he has done
much better since he was shot, his motion does not indicate
that he has gone above and beyond. Second, the defendant
states no reason why he needs early termination. He
acknowledges that he is not under intensive supervision. He
indicates that he has not been working, so supervision does
not interfere with his ability to look for jobs. He has not
described any hardship which continuing supervision places on
him. Finally, both the government and probation emphasize
that the defendant's connection with his probation
officer provides him with community support and
stability-something that is important for someone who, while
he has been on release for two years, has been in compliance
for much less time.
court strongly encourages the defendant to keep up the good
work, and is relieved that the result of the shooting was not
court DENIES the defendant's motion for
early termination of ...