Court Opinion

ID: 9652321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:22:13.232299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:50.286930
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
I join the judgment of the Court because our current case law and the version of the mandatory-supervision statute that controls in this case require the majority’s outcome. Whether intentionally or inad*895vertently, when it created mandatory supervision the Legislature did not include it among the events that cause a sentence to “cease to operate” and trigger the commencement of a consecutive sentence. However, changes in the statute have now created “discretionary mandatory supervision,” an oxymoron.
The current statute makes mandatory supervision a fraternal twin of parole; it is parole in everything but name and eligibility rules and both multiplies and complicates the work of the parole panels. Given that reality, the issue of whether discretionary mandatory supervision belongs among the events that triggers the commencement of a consecutive sentence, or should even continue to exist, is ripe for re-examination.