Reported / Citable
Background
In January 2025, Derrick Dewayne Johnson was sentenced by Judge Alan D. Albright to a time-served term of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release for Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). Johnson began supervision on January 24, 2025. Within three months, the U.S. Probation Office sought modification of his conditions after Johnson tested positive for marijuana and opiates and admitted to using unprescribed pain medication. In April 2025, Judge Albright granted the modification, adding substance abuse treatment requirements without revoking supervision.
Despite the modified conditions, Johnson continued to accrue violations. On February 24, 2026, the Probation Office filed a revocation petition alleging four separate violations occurring between April 2025 and February 2026. The violations included new criminal conduct — felony drug possession and felony evidence tampering under Texas law — as well as continued drug use and failure to pay his court-ordered fine and special assessment.
Specifically, the petition alleged that on January 29, 2026, Johnson possessed crack cocaine weighing four grams or more but less than 200 grams (a Texas second-degree felony), and on the same date tampered with evidence knowing an official investigation or proceeding was pending or in progress (a Texas third-degree felony). Johnson was also alleged to have used and possessed opiates and marijuana on approximately April 2 and June 11, 2025, and to have failed to pay his financial obligations as of February 23, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
At a revocation hearing held on June 16, 2026, Johnson pleaded TRUE to all four violations. Magistrate Judge Dan N. MacLemore found that Johnson’s admissions were made competently, voluntarily, and with a full understanding of his rights and the consequences of his pleas. The magistrate found a sufficient factual basis supporting each violation.
Magistrate Judge MacLemore issued a Report and Recommendation to District Judge Christopher R. Wolfe recommending that Johnson’s supervised release be revoked and that he be sentenced to six months of imprisonment, with credit for any time already served since his arrest, and with no further period of supervised release to follow. The recommendation is subject to de novo review by the district judge if either party files timely objections within fourteen days.
Key Takeaways
- Johnson admitted to four supervised release violations, including two new state felony offenses — felony crack cocaine possession and felony evidence tampering — committed while on supervision.
- The magistrate recommends a six-month prison term with no supervised release to follow, reflecting the seriousness of the new criminal conduct and Johnson’s pattern of non-compliance despite a prior modification of conditions.
- The prior modification in April 2025, which added substance abuse treatment rather than revocation, did not deter further violations, underscoring the limits of condition modifications as an alternative to revocation for repeat violators.
- The Report and Recommendation is not a final order; either party may file objections within 14 days, triggering de novo review by the district judge, or waive appellate review of unobjected-to findings.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the graduated response framework courts employ in supervised release proceedings — modifying conditions before resorting to revocation — and its limits when defendants continue to engage in new criminal conduct. Johnson’s case moved from a modification in early 2025 to a full revocation recommendation in 2026 after alleged felony offenses, signaling that courts will ultimately revoke supervision when violations escalate to serious new crimes.
For defense practitioners, the case is a reminder of the procedural protections required even in revocation proceedings: the magistrate’s detailed competency findings reflect the constitutional requirements that pleas of TRUE be entered knowingly and voluntarily. For prosecutors and probation officers, it demonstrates how evidence tampering allegations alongside drug offenses can strengthen a revocation posture and support a recommendation for no further supervision following imprisonment.