887 N.W.2d 271
Minn.2016Background
- Demetris Duncan was sentenced to 196 months for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, including a supervised-release term and a mandatory 5-year conditional-release term for sex offenders (Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7 (2004)).
- DOC originally calculated conditional release to run concurrently with supervised release (per State v. Koperski), so Duncan’s conditional-release term was reduced by projected supervised-release time.
- After release to supervised release in Aug. 2011, Duncan repeatedly failed to secure approved housing; DOC revoked his supervised release multiple times and returned him to prison for periods to attempt housing placement.
- In 2012 DOC recalculated conditional-release expirations following court of appeals decisions holding conditional release runs consecutively to supervised release (Peterson, Cote) and gave credit only for days actually spent in the community on supervised release (one day in Duncan’s case).
- Duncan filed habeas petitions challenging DOC’s calculation and argued that time spent in custody after revocation counts as time "served on supervised release" and must reduce his conditional-release term. District court and court of appeals rejected his claim.
- Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed: statutory text and related provisions mean time served after revocation is not "served on supervised release," so no credit against the conditional-release term for post-revocation incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "time the person served on supervised release" in Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7(a) includes incarceration time after DOC revokes supervised release | Duncan: phrase includes all time in the supervised-release term, regardless of whether the inmate is in custody or community; thus post-revocation incarceration counts and reduces conditional release | DOC: phrase covers only time actually served on supervised release (i.e., time in the community); time after revocation is incarceration, not supervised release, so no credit | Court: Held DOC correct; time after revocation is not "served on supervised release," so no credit against conditional release |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Koperski, 611 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. App. 2000) (previously applied concurrent calculation of supervised and conditional release)
- State ex rel. Peterson v. Fabian, 784 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. App. 2010) (held conditional release runs consecutively to supervised release)
- State v. Ward, 847 N.W.2d 29 (Minn. App. 2014) (court of appeals decision that inmates are not entitled to credit for time spent in prison after supervised-release revocation)
- State v. Schnagl, 859 N.W.2d 297 (Minn. 2015) (procedural ruling on proper vehicle to challenge DOC calculations; addressed similar legal question)
- State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 2003) (discussion that supervised release is the period of mandatory community supervision following imprisonment)
- State v. Schwartz, 628 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. 2001) (explains supervised-release as the remaining one-third of sentence after imprisonment)
- Dereje v. State, 837 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 2013) (canon that different statutory language in same context suggests different meanings)