Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division

June 5, 2019

SHAWN MICHAEL BROWN MOVANT
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SHARION AYCOCK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the court on the petition of Shawn Michael Brown for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court did not require the government to respond to the petition, and the matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

         Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

          The writ of habeas corpus, a challenge to the legal authority under which a person may be detained, is ancient. Duker, The English Origins of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: A Peculiar Path to Fame, 53 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 983 (1978); Glass, Historical Aspects of Habeas Corpus, 9 St. John's L.Rev. 55 (1934). It is “perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law of England, ” Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O'Brien, A.C. 603, 609 (1923), and it is equally significant in the United States. Article I, § 9, of the Constitution ensures that the right of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, except when, in the case of rebellion or invasion, public safety may require it. Habeas Corpus, 20 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Deskbook § 56. Its use by the federal courts was authorized in Section14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Habeas corpus principles developed over time in both English and American common law have since been codified:

The statutory provisions on habeas corpus appear as sections 2241 to 2255 of the 1948 Judicial Code. The recodification of that year set out important procedural limitations and additional procedural changes were added in 1966. The scope of the writ, insofar as the statutory language is concerned, remained essentially the same, however, until 1996, when Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, placing severe restrictions on the issuance of the writ for state prisoners and setting out special, new habeas corpus procedures for capital cases. The changes made by the 1996 legislation are the end product of decades of debate about habeas corpus.

Id.

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal court may issue the writ when the petitioner is in state custody pursuant to something other than a state judgment (such as pretrial detention, pretrial bond order, etc.), permitting a federal court to order the discharge of any person held by a state in violation of the supreme law of the land. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 311, 35 S.Ct. 582, 588, 59 L.Ed. 969 (1915).). Section 2241 is an appropriate vehicle to challenge government action that affects the actual duration of the petitioner's custody (rather than the length of the sentence imposed), “such as challenges to administrative orders revoking good-time credits, computation of a prisoner's sentence by prison officials, a right to release on parole, or other equivalent sentence-shortening devices.” § 5:7. Federal prisoners-Section 2241 habeas corpus petitions, Postconviction Remedies § 5:7. The petitioner in this case thus seeks the appropriate form of federal habeas corpus relief.

         Facts and Procedural Posture

         On November 15, 2012, Shawn Brown was sentenced in state court to serve a term of 5 years' incarceration with the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) for possession of marijuana. MDOC credited 88 days towards his sentence for pretrial detention from July 3, 2012, to July 5, 2012 (2 days) - and from August 21, 2012, to November 15, 2012 (86 days). He was convicted in this court and sentenced on January 15, 2014, to incarceration for 100 months for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance (marijuana and cocaine). United States v. Brown, 1:12CR167-SA-DAS. While Mr. Brown was serving his state sentence, the United States Marshal Service took physical custody of him from March 25, 2013, to February 18, 2014, so that he could receive a mental evaluation and for trial on his federal criminal charge. He was returned to the physical custody of MDOC on February 18, 2014.

         He was released on parole on his state sentence and remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal Service on a federal detainer on October 29, 2014. He was given into the physical and legal custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on December 12, 2014. He fully completed his state sentence on October 28, 2015, and is now serving out the remainder of his federal sentence.[1]

         The Interplay Between Mr. Brown's State and Federal Sentences

         An overarching fact throughout this discussion is that Mr. Brown remained in the continuous legal custody of Mississippi authorities from the date of his state conviction, November 15, 2012, until his state sentence fully expired on October 28, 2015. From the date of his federal conviction, January 15, 2014, until the expiration of his state sentence, October 28, 2015, he was also in the legal custody of the United States because his state and federal sentences ran concurrently. As set forth below, the State and Federal governments exchanged physical custody of Mr. Brown several times, but none of these exchanges altered the terms of his incarceration for either conviction.

         Credit Applied to Mr. Brown's State and Federal Sentences

         Mr. Brown claims that he is entitled to credit towards his federal sentence from March 25, 2013, to January 13, 2014 - a period during his physical custody with the Marshal Service. He also argues that he is entitled to one year of credit towards his federal sentence - from October 29, 2014, to October 28, 2015. This represents the period between his release on parole from his state sentence into physical federal custody and the expiration of his state ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.