United States v. John Doe, United States of America v. John Doe

53 F.3d 1081 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 94-30092, 94-30190. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 1995. Decided May 11, 1995. Wiggins, Circuit Judge, filed concurring opinion. Carol Koller and Peter Offenbecher, Asst. Federal Public Defenders, Seattle, WA, for defendant-appellant. Mark N. Bartlett, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, WA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before: WRIGHT, HALL, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge HALL; Concurrence by Judge WIGGINS. CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge: 1 We face a question of first impression under the Juvenile Delinquency Act (the "Juvenile Act"), 18 U.S.C. Secs. 5031-5042 . We must decide whether an adjudicated juvenile delinquent may be sentenced to a term of supervised release. We conclude that he may not. I. 2 Appellant John Doe 1 is a member of the Sauk-Suittle tribe. Early in the summer of 1989, he killed a woman on the Sauk-Suiattle reservation in western Washington. He was 17…

Opinion by Judge HALL; Concurrence by Judge WIGGINS.

We face a question of first impression under the Juvenile Delinquency Act (the “Juvenile Act”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042 . We must decide whether an adjudicated juvenile delinquent may be sentenced to a term of supervised release. We conclude that he may not.

I.

Appellant John Doe 1 is a member of the Sauk-Suittle tribe. Early in the summer of 1989, he killed a woman on the Sauk-Suiattle reservation in western Washington. He was 17 years old at the time of the killing.

The government sought to try Appellant as an adult. The district court, however, denied *1082 the government’s motion to transfer the ease to adult court. See 18 U.S.C. § 5032 . The district court held a stipulated facts trial, at the conclusion of which it found Appellant guilty of the delinquent act of second degree murder. The district court sentenced Appellant to five years of official detention, the maximum sentence authorized by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 5037 (c)(2)(a). It, also gave him a five-year term of supervised release.

At the sentencing hearing, Appellant’s attorney argued that the Juvenile Act did not authorize supervised release and that…

concurring:

I concur in the majority’s opinion. I write separately to add a few comments. The defendant in this case was originally sentenced to five years of detention for second degree murder. He then twice violated the terms of his supervised release, with his second violation resulting in a four-year sentence in an adult correctional facility. ■ That sentence has been vacated by our holding that defendant’s original supervised release term was not a permissible sentencing option under the Juvenile Act.

We all hope the defendant has learned his lesson and will not find himself in legal trouble in the future. If he does run afoul of the law, however, he will no longer be able to avail himself of the lenient provisions of the Juvenile Act (the defendant is now over eighteen). Instead, he will face a criminal justice system in which the punishment more accurately reflects the gravity of the crime.