Opinion ID: 606297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Probation Revocation Order

Text: 15 The appellant's second claim is that the district court erroneously revoked his probation because he had already completed his term of probation. The appellant argues that he spent more than 3 years in jail prior to the district court's May 31, 1990 sentencing order and another 2 years on probation prior to the district court's September 16, 1992 revocation order. Thus, he contends that he had already served five years of probation prior to the district court's revocation of his probation. 13 16 Since the appellant failed to raise this issue below, we may review the appellant's claim only if it constituted plain error. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Plain error is obvious and substantial error that affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Jefferson, 925 F.2d 1242, 1254 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 238 (1991). 17 The heart of the appellant's claim is that he is entitled to credit his prison time against his sentence of probation. In support of this proposition, the appellant relies on a footnote in Sullens v. United States, 409 F.2d 545, 548 n. 5 (5th Cir.1969), where the court suggested that a defendant sentenced to probation is entitled to reduce that sentence by any time previously spent in detention. Not only is this footnote dicta, however, but it is also in tension with a number of court decisions holding that a term of probation commences on the day that the sentence of probation is imposed, unless otherwise ordered by the court. See United States v. Freeman, 922 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Gaddis, 280 F.2d 334, 336 (6th Cir.1960); Sanford v. King, 136 F.2d 106, 108 (5th Cir.1943). Under these latter decisions, the appellant would not be entitled to credit his prior incarceration time against his sentence of probation since the district court failed to provide for such a result in its May 31, 1990 sentencing order. 18 Accordingly, we conclude that the district court's revocation of probation did not rise to the level of plain error. Given the absence of plain error, it is inappropriate for us to review this claim.