Filed: Sep. 14, 2011
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2011
Summary: NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Louis E. Williams, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), appeals a judgment affirming the final agency decision and dismissing his petition for judicial review. We affirm the judgment in accordance with Rule 2-16.1(B) of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. On February 18, 1998, Mr. Williams pled guilty to the charge of manslaughter. He was sentenced to a term of fifteen years,
Summary: NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION HIGGINBOTHAM, J. Louis E. Williams, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), appeals a judgment affirming the final agency decision and dismissing his petition for judicial review. We affirm the judgment in accordance with Rule 2-16.1(B) of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. On February 18, 1998, Mr. Williams pled guilty to the charge of manslaughter. He was sentenced to a term of fifteen years, w..
More
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
HIGGINBOTHAM, J.
Louis E. Williams, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), appeals a judgment affirming the final agency decision and dismissing his petition for judicial review. We affirm the judgment in accordance with Rule 2-16.1(B) of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.
On February 18, 1998, Mr. Williams pled guilty to the charge of manslaughter. He was sentenced to a term of fifteen years, with credit for the time he served while awaiting disposition of the charges against him. According to the record, Mr. Williams was deemed eligible for parole after serving one-third (five years) of his sentence and was released on parole supervision. Subsequently, Mr. Williams was charged with absconding supervision and his parole was revoked. DPSC determined that after his parole was revoked he owed nine years eleven months, and sixteen days on his sentence.
In September 2009, Mr. Williams filed a Petition for Judicial Review pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:1177; complaining that the DPSC incorrectly calculated his good time release date after the revocation of his parole and challenging the duration of his confinement with DPSC. Mr. Williams argues that, because he had served five years prior to being released on parole, he should only have to serve two and one-half years more in order to reach his good time release date. He asserts that under LSA-R.S. 15:571.3 (governing diminution of sentence for good behavior) his fifteen year sentence should have been be reduced to seven and one-half for "good time." He further contends that according to LSA-R.S. 15:574.9(E)1 he should "return and continue w[h]ere he left off on [his] sentence."
DPSC has taken the position that Mr. Williams forfeited all the good time earned prior to release on parole pursuant to LSA-R.S. 15:571.4(B)(2) which provides;
(2) An inmate who has been returned to the custody of the department because of a violation of the terms of parole granted by the Board of Parole shall forfeit all good time earned on that portion of the sentence served prior to the granting of parole.
DPSC further notes that the parole certification signed by Mr. Williams stated "I understand that should my parole be revoked for any reason, I will forfeit all good time earned on that portion of my sentence prior to parole."
The Commissioner's recommendation stated:
R.S. 15:571.4(B)(2) directly addresses the issue of whether an inmate, released on parole by a decision of the Parole Board, must forfeit all good time earned prior to his release on parole... R.S. 15:571.4(B)(2) must be applied to the petitioner in this matter...[Mr. Williams'] original good time date ... was only a projected release date and that projection was based upon the petitioner continuing to earn day-for-day good time credit until he reached his projected good time release date.
[Mr. Williams] fails to show his good time release date has been improperly calculated by the defendants or show that he has reached his mandatory good time release date at this time.
The district court adopted the reasons of the commissioner, affirmed the decision of the agency, and dismissed the suit with prejudice. We have reviewed the entire record and agree with the conclusion reached by DPSC and the district court that Mr. Williams forfeited all his earned "good time" after revocation of his parole. Therefore, the computation of his good time credit by DPSC was correct, and we find no error in the judgment affirming the DPSC decision and dismissing Mr. Williams' petition. The judgment is affirmed and all costs of this appeal are assessed against Mr. Williams.
AFFIRMED.
