Cox v. State, CR-92-681
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | PATTERSON |
| Citation | 628 So.2d 1075 |
| Parties | Phillip R. COX v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | CR-92-681 |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1993 |
Page 1075
v.
STATE.
Phillip R. Cox, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Harry Lyles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant, Phillip R. Cox, appeals from the circuit court's dismissal of his "Petition for Writ of Certiorari," which the state and the court treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this petition, Cox alleged that he is incarcerated in the Elmore Correctional Center; that, when he was sentenced to 99 years' imprisonment for his April 1980 conviction for murder, he was "entitled" to incentive good time (IGT) pursuant to §§ 14-9-20 through -25, Code of Alabama 1975; 1 and that he is being denied IGT contrary to the legislature's intent.
Section 14-9-20 states, "In order to encourage prison discipline, commutation of time shall be used as a reward for good behavior at the discretion of the board of corrections." Furthermore, § 14-9-22 states, "It is the intent of this article that the custody classification provided for in section 14-9-21 be used by the board only in exceptional cases of good behavior and industriousness in order that inmates be given a meaningful incentive for good behavior."
Cox alleged that Admin.Reg. 420 sets out the bases for determining a prisoner's eligibility for IGT, and that section (h) of this regulation, in effect when he was sentenced, stated the following:
"PSYCHOLOGICAL AND/OR SOCIOLOGICAL
"Any inmate whose psychological or sociological profile contraindicates an early release back to society will not receive IGT. A history of repeated disciplinaries will constitute evidence of an inability to adjust and, therefore, a contraindication of IGT status."
Cox further alleged that, when he was recommended on or about October 28, 1986, for IGT based on his excellent work and counselor's reports, he was illegally denied IGT by the application of the following amendment to (h): "Since criminal record is an important element of sociological profile, repeated convictions for violent crimes against persons may be a contraindication to award of IGT status." He argued that, by the legislature's expressed intent, only the inmate's conduct in prison is pertinent to eligibility for IGT, and that the amendment, which calls for
Page 1076
consideration of the inmate's criminal record, is contrary to the legislature's intent. Finally, he asserted that he has maintained, over a 5-year period, a clean prison record.In response to Cox's opinion, the state filed a motion to dismiss Cox's "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." Attached to this motion is an affidavit of the classification director of the Department of Corrections, in which she states the following:
"Respondent replies that since criminal history is an integral part of an individual's sociological profile, I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Boykins
...petition was properly dismissed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his brief to this Court, Boykins relies on Cox v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim. App.1993), as authority supporting his argument that the trial court wrongfully treated his petition for a writ of certiorari as a......
-
Collins v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, CR-03-0285.
...is an appeal made in accordance with § 41-22-20(a) of the Act. However, pursuant to § 41-22-3(9)(g)(1), as noted in Cox [v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)], Boykins has no right to avail himself of such judicial ". . . . "Here, Boykins, an inmate in a public institution, has soug......
-
Block v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, CR-04-1417.
...is an appeal made in accordance with § 41-22-20(a) of the Act. However, pursuant to § 41-22-3(9)(g)(1), as noted in Cox [v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993)], Boykins has no right to avail himself of such judicial ". . . . "Here, Boykins, an inmate in a public institution, has sou......
-
Jacobs v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...is an appeal made in accordance with § 41-22-20(a) of the Act. However, pursuant to § 41-22-3(9)(g)(1), as noted in Cox v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), Boykins has no right to avail himself of such judicial ". . . . "Here, Boykins, an inmate in a public institution, has sought......
-
Ex parte Boykins
...petition was properly dismissed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his brief to this Court, Boykins relies on Cox v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim. App.1993), as authority supporting his argument that the trial court wrongfully treated his petition for a writ of certiorari as a......
-
Collins v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, CR-03-0285.
...is an appeal made in accordance with § 41-22-20(a) of the Act. However, pursuant to § 41-22-3(9)(g)(1), as noted in Cox [v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)], Boykins has no right to avail himself of such judicial ". . . . "Here, Boykins, an inmate in a public institution, has soug......
-
Block v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, CR-04-1417.
...is an appeal made in accordance with § 41-22-20(a) of the Act. However, pursuant to § 41-22-3(9)(g)(1), as noted in Cox [v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993)], Boykins has no right to avail himself of such judicial ". . . . "Here, Boykins, an inmate in a public institution, has sou......
-
Jacobs v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...is an appeal made in accordance with § 41-22-20(a) of the Act. However, pursuant to § 41-22-3(9)(g)(1), as noted in Cox v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), Boykins has no right to avail himself of such judicial ". . . . "Here, Boykins, an inmate in a public institution, has sought......