|
Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605 (1973)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605 (1973)
Bradley v. United States No. 71-1304 Argued January 8, 1973 Decided March 5, 1973 410 U.S. 605
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
On May 6, 1971, petitioners were convicted and sentenced for narcotics offenses committed in March, 1971. They received the minimum five-year sentences under a provision that was mandatory and made the sentences not subject to suspension, probation, or parole. Effective May 1, 1971, that provision was repealed and liberalized by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. On petitioners’ motion for vacation of their sentences and remand for resentencing, the Court of Appeals held that the new provisions were unavailable in view of the Act’s saving clause, which made them inapplicable to "prosecutions" antedating the Act’s effective date.
Held:
1. The word "prosecutions" in the saving clause is to be accorded its normal legal sense, under which sentencing is a part of the concept of prosecution. Therefore, the saving clause barred the District Judge from suspending sentence or placing petitioners on probation. Pp. 607-610.
2. Under the saving clause, parole under 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a) is likewise unavailable to petitioners, since, by its terms, that provision is inapplicable to offenses for which a mandatory penalty is provided; and, in any event, a decision to grant early parole under that provision must be made "[u]pon entering a judgment of conviction," which occurs before the end of the prosecution. Pp. 610-611.
455 F.2d 1181, affirmed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, and in Part I of which BRENNAN and WHITE, JJ., joined. BRENNAN and WHITE, JJ., filed a statement concurring in the judgment, post, p. 611. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 612.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605 (1973) in 410 U.S. 605 410 U.S. 606. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1L8W4KXRKR243SL.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605 (1973), in 410 U.S. 605, page 410 U.S. 606. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1L8W4KXRKR243SL.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605 (1973). cited in 1973, 410 U.S. 605, pp.410 U.S. 606. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=1L8W4KXRKR243SL.
|