RICHARD MAGNUSSEN v. CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, even though the defendant had completed his incarceration term, his appeal was not moot “[b]ecause success for Dawson could alter the supervised release portion of his sentence”
• holding that habeas appeal was “not moot” because petitioner was “still serving his term of supervised release, which is part of his sentence and involves some restrictions upon his liberty”
• holding that the defendant’s habeas petition was not moot, although he had been released from federal custody, because he was “still serving his term of supervised release, which is part of his sentence and in- volves some restrictions upon his liberty”
• explaining that the appeal was not rendered moot by the completion of Dawson’s incarceration term because he was still serving his term of supervised release and success for Dawson could alter the supervised release portion of his sentence
• explaining that a term of supervised release is part of the sentence that involves some restrictions upon liberty while it is still being served, and that success could alter the supervised release portion of the sentence such that the appeal would not be moot.
• “[T]he government contends that this appeal is moot. We disagree. Dawson is still serving his term of supervised release, which is part of his sentence and involves some restrictions upon his liberty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).