United States v. Graden James Miguel

Good Law
49 F.3d 505·95 Daily Journal DAR 2504·1995 WL 75492·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 3708·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1410
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 27, 199594-10234California3,221 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldisert, J.

The major question for decision is whether restitution is available as an additional penal ty under 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (a)(1) when a defendant is sentenced to a period of incarceration for a misdemeanor offense. Graden James Miguel originally was sentenced to a period of probation, including restitution, following a conviction for assault by striking, beating or wounding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113 (d), a misdemeanor offense. He subsequently violated the terms of probation and, after a hearing, the district court revoked probation, sentenced him to six months imprisonment and let stand the order of restitution. Miguel appeals and argues that under the terms of 18 U.S.C. '§ 3663(a)(1), 'where one is sentenced to incarceration for a misdemeanor, the court may not also impose an order of restitution.

In this case of first impression, we are called upon to construe Section 3663(a)(1):

Two different interpretations of the phrase “or, in the case of a misdemeanor, in lieu of any other penalty” are urged by the parties. Appellant argues that the statute allows for restitution in misdemeanor cases only when no other penalty is imposed. The Government argues that the penalty of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.