U.S. v. Swanson

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JASON E. SWANSON, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Dec 21, 2005

Case No. 99-80890 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 99-80890.

December 21, 2005

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CORRECT JUDGMENT

PATRICK DUGGAN, District Judge

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Correct Judgment.

Defendant was originally sentenced on June 20, 2001. Defendant filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking relief from the judgment and the sentence that was imposed on June 20, 2001. Because the Court agreed that the Defendant's sentence on June 20, 2001 was based on an incorrect criminal history, the Court entered an order that Defendant be resentenced.

Defendant was resentenced on October 25, 2005. At the time of resentencing, the Court indicated that the fine would remain the same and the terms of supervised release would remain the same. The Court further indicated that it was not changing any of the other special conditions of supervised release.

Defendant contends that the judgment entered on October 25, 2005 contained some conditions of supervised release that were not specifically set forth by the Court at the time of resentencing. Defendant objects to the sentence in the judgment of conviction under the topic "Supervised Release" that states, "If the Defendant is convicted of a felony offense, DNA collection is required by Public Law 108-405." Defendant considers this to be a "condition" of supervised release not set forth by the Court at the time of the resentencing. Defendant contends that because the Court did not change any of the conditions of supervised release when it resentenced Defendant, the addition of the "condition" which provides, "If Defendant is convicted of a felony offense, DNA collection is required by Public Law 108-405," is a "condition" that should not be in the judgment because it conflicts with the conditions of supervised release as pronounced by the Court at the time of resentencing.

While the Court did not state, "If Defendant is convicted of a felony offense, DNA collection is required by Public Law 108-405," the Court does not deem this to be a "condition" of supervised release. Public Law 108-405 was enacted, in part, "to provide post-conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent." ( See attached excerpt from Public Law 108-405). It is simply informing the Defendant that, under existing law, if Defendant is convicted of a felony offense, DNA collection is required. This is not a "condition" imposed by the Court.

Because the statement, "If the Defendant is convicted of a felony offense, DNA collection is required by Public Law 108-405," is not a condition of supervised release, the Court is satisfied that the judgment does not include a condition of supervised release contrary to those pronounced by the Court at the time of sentencing.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's "Motion to Correct Judgment" is DENIED.