Dorman v. State
Decision Date | 27 June 1983 |
Docket Number | Nos. 83-22,83-23,s. 83-22 |
Citation | 665 P.2d 511 |
Parties | Ronald DORMAN, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Ronald Dorman, appellant, pro se.
A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dennis M. Boal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before ROONEY, C.J., and RAPER, * THOMAS, ROSE and BROWN, JJ.
Appellant pleaded guilty to second degree sexual assault in violation of § 6-4-303, W.S.1977, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of "not less than ten (10) years and not more than twelve (12) years." 1 Time spent in the county jail was credited to the maximum twelve year sentence. Appellant moved for a corrected sentence under Rule 36, Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2
This appeal is from the district court's denial of motions to correct a sentence. The issues are whether a sentence of imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, nor more than twelve years, illegally infringes on the power of the executive branch of state government to grant a prisoner parole, and whether it deprives the appellant of good time allowance without procedural due process of law.
We will affirm.
There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be paroled before the expiration of a valid sentence. The right to parole, if it exists at all, is a right provided for by the legislature. The legislative enactment creating such right may specify the requirements or conditions an inmate must satisfy to be eligible for parole. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979).
The Wyoming legislature has vested the power to grant parole in the Wyoming Parole Board, a part of the executive branch of government. While the board has broad discretion in determining when to grant parole, its authority is not without limitation. The legislature has provided that an inmate is not eligible for parole until he has served the minimum sentence imposed by the district court.
"The board shall have the power to grant a parole * * * to any person imprisoned in any institution under sentence ordered by any district court of this state, other than a life sentence, and who shall have served the minimum term pronounced by the trial court * * *." Section 7-13-402(a), W.S.1977.
The legislature has also allowed that the Board of Parole may provide for good time allowance through rules and regulations.
Section 7-13-402(c), W.S.1977, Cum.Supp.1980.
Appellant asserts that under the Wyoming Board of Parole rules an inmate with a twelve-year sentence, less his good time allowance, could complete the twelve-year sentence in less than eight years. However, the rules and statutes also provide that a prisoner must serve at least the minimum sentence imposed by the court. According to appellant, he could complete his maximum sentence in less than eight years because of good time allowance, but cannot be released under the board's rules because he has not completed his minimum sentence.
Because there is a potential here that a good time allowance would eliminate the need to consider parole, appellant contends the power of the executive branch to grant parole has been eliminated by the district court sentence. Appellant says that the sentence of not less than ten years nor more than twelve years therefore violates the separation of powers doctrine of the Wyoming Constitution.
The Wyoming legislature has created a right for inmates to be considered for parole. Part of the legislative scheme is the requirement that an inmate must serve the minimum sentence imposed by the court before he can be considered for parole. It is a valid exercise of the legislature's power to impose the requirement, just as it is a valid exercise of the district court's power to impose a minimum sentence. Appellant would like to take advantage of the right granted by the legislature to be considered for parole, but wants to ignore the threshhold requirement created by the legislature that he must complete the minimum sentence. The sentence here does not impose any conditions which would preclude the board's consideration of parole provided appellant is eligible....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duffy v. State, 87-160
...liberty interest that cannot be denied without due process. This argument is premised on the rationale that, according to Dorman v. State, 665 P.2d 511 (Wyo.1983), any good time earned cannot be applied to reduce his minimum In Dorman, we held that the legislature had created only a limited......
-
Wlodarczyk v. State
...came to this court, there had been only one appellate case involving the right to parole and it did not consider revocation. Dorman v. State, 665 P.2d 511 (Wyo.1983).The dual questions of separation of power under Wyo. Const. art. 2 and efficacy of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure ne......
-
Hamill v. Ferguson, 95-CV-093-J.
...has vested the power to grant parole in the Wyoming Parole Board, a part of the executive branch of government." Dorman v. State, 665 P.2d 511, 512 (Wyo.1983). The power to revoke parole, unlike the power to revoke probation, is not a judicial function. Wlodarczyk v. State, 836 P.2d 279, 28......
-
Weldon v. Gordon
...2022 WY 115 STEVE ALLEN WELDON, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. THE HONORABLE MARK GORDON, Governor of the State of Wyoming, and WYOMING BOARD OF PAROLE, Appellees (Defendants). No. S-21-0241Supreme Court of WyomingSeptember 22, 2022 ... ... expectation of it. [He] must have a legitimate claim of ... entitlement to a protectable right." Dorman v ... State, 665 P.2d 511, 514 (Wyo. 1983) (citing Bd. of ... Regents of State Colleges, et. al v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, ... 570-71, 92 S.Ct. 2701, ... ...