Ex parte Boykins
Decision Date | 20 December 2002 |
Citation | 862 So.2d 587 |
Parties | Ex parte Gregory BOYKINS. (In re Gregory Boykins v. State of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gregory Boykins, pro se.
Andrew W. Redd, gen. counsel, for respondent Department of Corrections.
On September 17, 2001, Gregory Boykins, an inmate at the Bullock County Correctional Facility, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Bullock County Circuit Court challenging the denial by the Department of Corrections ("the DOC") of his request to receive incentive good time ("IGT"). On October 26, 2001, the district attorney's office filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which Boykins opposed. In an order issued on November 1, 2001, the trial court characterized Boykins's petition as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and granted the motion to dismiss. On December 19, 2001, Boykins filed a notice of appeal to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. That court affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal in an unpublished memorandum, Boykins v. State, (No. CR-01-0659, February 22, 2002) 854 So.2d 1228 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (table).
Boykins petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of the trial court's order. We granted Boykins's petition on May 28, 2002, to address the question whether the Court of Criminal Appeals properly affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal where the basis of the dismissal was the trial court's treatment of Boykins's petition for a writ of certiorari as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The record reveals that in March 1973 Boykins was convicted of first-degree murder and was sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment.1 In September 1974, while working on a "road camp," Boykins escaped. He remained a fugitive from 1974 until April 1995, when he was returned to the custody of the DOC. While on escape, Boykins pleaded guilty to another murder in Illinois. Subsequent to his return to the custody of the DOC, Boykins requested eligibility to earn IGT. His requests were denied by the DOC because of its determination that Boykins failed to meet the criteria for receipt of IGT.
In affirming the trial court's dismissal of Boykins's petition as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated in its unpublished memorandum:
2
Boykins asserts that the conclusion by the Court of Criminal Appeals that the circuit court correctly treated his petition for a writ of certiorari as a petition for habeas corpus was incorrect. The basis for that conclusion was the Court of Criminal Appeals' recognition that a petition for habeas corpus is the proper means for testing whether the State has correctly calculated the duration of an inmate's incarceration. Breach v. State, 687 So.2d 1257 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 158 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). However, Boykins argues that his petition does not question whether the State correctly calculated his sentence; instead, he argues that his petition sought to review an administrative determination by the DOC as to whether he was entitled to earn IGT. Boykins argues that because his petition sought review of an administrative decision rather than the vindication of a "liberty interest," the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in determining that his 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 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In Cox, an inmate incarcerated in the Elmore Correctional Center challenged a trial court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of certiorari, which the court had treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant, like Boykins, alleged that he was entitled to IGT and that the denial of IGT was contrary to the Legislature's intent in enacting Ala.Code 1975, §§ 14-9-20 through 14-9-25.2 The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the trial court had erred in treating a petition for a writ of certiorari as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court stated:
628 So.2d at 1076-77 (emphasis added). The court in Cox concluded its opinion with the following statement in a footnote: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collins v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, CR-03-0285.
...549 So.2d at 631. Therefore, the appellant has not shown that a liberty interest has been implicated in this case.1 In Ex parte Boykins, 862 So.2d 587 (Ala.2002), Boykins filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in which he asserted that DOC had improperly denied his request to receive inc......
-
Powell v. Lightner
...a different mechanism, a petition the circuit court for a writ of certiorari. See McConico, 893 So. 2d at 579-80 ("[I]n Ex parte Boykins, 862 So. 2d 587 (Ala. 2002), the Alabama Supreme Court...h[eld] that an inmate's challenge to an administrative rule addressing his right to earn incentiv......
-
Block v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, CR-04-1417.
...549 So.2d at 631. Therefore, the appellant has not shown that a liberty interest has been implicated in this case.1 In Ex parte Boykins, 862 So.2d 587 (Ala.2002), Boykins filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in which he asserted that DOC had improperly denied his request to receive inc......
-
Jacobs v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...549 So.2d at 631. Therefore, the appellant has not shown that a liberty interest has been implicated in this case.1 In Ex parte Boykins, 862 So.2d 587 (Ala.2002), Boykins filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in which he asserted that DOC had improperly denied his request to receive inc......