Ralston v. Robinson

PETITIONER: Ralston
RESPONDENT: Robinson
LOCATION: Suffolk County Court

DOCKET NO.: 80-2049
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITATION: 454 US 201 (1981)
ARGUED: Oct 05, 1981
DECIDED: Dec 02, 1981

ADVOCATES:
David A. Strauss - on behalf of the Petitioner
Jerold S. Solovy - on behalf of the Respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Ralston v. Robinson

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 05, 1981 in Ralston v. Robinson

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 02, 1981 in Ralston v. Robinson

Warren E. Burger:

The judgments and opinion of the Court in No. 80-2049 will be announced by Justice -- Ralston against Robinson will be announced by Justice Marshall.

Thurgood Marshall:

This case is here on writ on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Respondent were sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act to a youth sentence.

He committed additional crimes while serving that sentence and received consecutive adult terms of imprisonment.

The Court of Appeals ruled that despite the adult terms he must yet received youth treatment under the Act for the remainder of his youth sentence.

We granted the Government's petition with certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Circuits on this issue.

The Government argues that the Bureau of Prisons has authority to determine that respondent will not benefit from future youth treatment.

Respondent argues that he must be treated as a youth until his youth sentence expires, even though he will then have to serve adult terms of imprisonment.

In an opinion filed today with the clerk, we reject both arguments.

We hold that the Act does not require continued youth treatment if the judge imposing the subsequent adult sentence determines that the defendant will not benefit when further youth treatment during the remainder of his youth sentence.

We also conclude that the judge who imposed the first adult term in this particular case made such a determination.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Justice Powell has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Justice Stevens has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Brennan and Justice O'Connor have joined.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Justice Marshall.