Cox v. State, 4 Div. 213
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BOWEN |
| Citation | 548 So.2d 1099 |
| Parties | Tom COX v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 213 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 1989 |
Page 1099
v.
STATE.
BOWEN, Judge.
The opinion of February 24, 1989, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, wherein Tom Cox, the appellant, claims that he is entitled to good time credit on his penitentiary sentences.
Cox was convicted of theft of property in the second degree and sentenced on September 8, 1987, to 10 years' imprisonment. The trial court "further ordered" that Cox be sentenced under the Split Sentence Act and ordered Cox "to serve three (3) years" imprisonment.
On October 19, 1987, Cox was convicted of escape in the third degree and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. This sentence was also "split" with Cox being ordered to serve three years' imprisonment. This sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence for theft.
Cox was convicted of second degree forgery and sentenced on March 21, 1988, to 13 years' imprisonment. That sentence was "split" with Cox being ordered to serve two years' imprisonment, concurrently with the sentence he was then serving for escape.
Cox argues that he is entitled to "good time credit" under Ala.Code 1975, § 14-9-41.
The authority to impose a split sentence is found in Ala.Code 1975, § 15-18-8. That section was amended on April 7, 1988, to provide, among other things, as follows:
"No defendant serving a minimum period of confinement ordered under the provisions of subsection (a) shall be entitled to deductions from his sentence under the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act, during the minimum period of confinement so ordered; provided, however, that this subsection shall not be construed to prohibit application of the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act to any period of confinement which may be required after the defendant has served such minimum period." § 15-18-8(g).
Prior to this amendment, there was no mention of good time in § 15-18-8. Because Cox was convicted and sentenced before the effective date of this amendment, it does not apply to him.
However, under the applicable statutes as they existed at the time Cox was sentenced, Cox is still not entitled to good time credit. This Court reached a similar result in Thomas v. State, 541 So.2d 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1988):
"Since the petitioner received a sentence of 10 or more years, he is not entitled to CIT, even though that sentence was split so that he has only three years' confinement.
"The Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act authorizes 'good time' and is found in Alabama Code 1975, § 14-9-40 through § 14-9-44. Section 14-9-41 provides in pertinent part:
" '(a) Each prisoner who shall hereafter be convicted of any offense against the laws of the state of Alabama and is confined, in execution of the judgment or sentence upon any conviction, in the penitentiary or at hard labor for the county or in any municipal jail for a definite or indeterminate term, other than for life, whose record of conduct shows that he has faithfully observed the rules for a period of time to be specified by this article may be entitled to earn a deduction from the term of his sentence....
" ' * * * *
" '(e) Provided, however, no person may receive the benefits of correctional incentive time if he or she has been
Page 1101
convicted of a Class A felony or has been sentenced to life, or death, or who has received a sentence for 10 years or more in the state penitentiary....'"Thomas argues that § 14-9-41 entitles a prisoner to receive good time credit so long as his sentence to actual incarceration does not exceed 10 years. We disagree.
"Section 14-9-41(e) specifically excepts from eligibility for good time any person 'who has received a sentence for 10 years or more in the state penitentiary.' The petitioner construes the phrase 'a sentence for 10 years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...appellant relies on the distinction between the terms "confinement" and "sentence of imprisonment" made by this Court in Cox v. State, 548 So.2d 1099 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). In Cox, this Court held that a defendant who had been sentenced to 10 years' and 12 years' imprisonment was not entitled t......
-
Parker v. State
...appellant relies on the distinction between the terms "confinement" and "sentence of imprisonment" made by this Court in Cox v. State, 548 So.2d 1099 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). In Cox, this Court held that a defendant who had been sentenced to 10 years' and 12 years' imprisonment was not entitled t......