Ex parte Powers
| Decision Date | 17 June 1988 |
| Citation | 546 So.2d 1004 |
| Parties | Ex parte Johnny J. POWERS. (Re Johnny J. Powers v. State). 87-97. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William A. Owens, Jr., Athens, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Dorothy F. Norwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari in this case in order to review the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 546 So.2d 1000, which determined the amount of incentive good time the petitioner was authorized to receive under the provisions of Act No. 182, Acts of Alabama 1976; codified as Ala.Code 1975, §§ 14-9-20 through -25.
The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that
The Court of Criminals Appeals correctly interpreted Act No. 182, but it is apparent from a reading of that court's opinion that the Department of Corrections, in exercising the discretion granted to it under the provisions of Act No. 182, followed an opinion of the attorney general issued in 1976 1 that held that under Act 182 a qualified prisoner was entitled to only one day of good time for every day served. That opinion incorrectly interpreted the provisions of Act No. 182, as the Court of Criminal Appeals determined.
Because it is apparent that the decision of the Department of Corrections was based upon an erroneous opinion of the attorney general, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be reversed, and the cause remanded to that court with directions to remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. If the discretion exercised by the Board of Corrections was based upon an erroneous interpretation of the law, then the Board should exercise its discretion based upon a correct interpretation of the statute.
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be reversed and the cause remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archie v. State, CR-93-2117
... ... Archie further states, "Petitioner [is] asking for equal protection under Johnny Powers v. State of Alabama, [546 So.2d 1000 (Ala.Cr.App.1987),] and Ex parte Powers v. State of Alabama at 546 So.2d [1004 (Ala.1988),] because not like ... ...
-
Gullett v. State, CR-91-1854
...as the awarding of one incentive good time day instead of two is within the discretion of the Department of Corrections, Ex parte Powers, 546 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1988), so is the decision to apply incentive good time retroactively. The commissioner in this case reviewed the records of the appel......
-
Carlile v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...results in a total daily deduction in sentence of three days: two days good time plus the one day actually served." 546 So.2d at 1003. In Powers, this Court determined that, based on the evidence, it was clear that DOC had consciously made the decision to fix Powers's IGT credit at one day ......
-
Morris v. State, 8 Div. 550
...day served at Level I status (for a total of three days against total sentence), in violation of the rule set forth in Ex Parte Powers, 546 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Ala.1988). In Powers, our supreme court held that the DOC had incorrectly figured Powers's IGT on a two-for-one instead of a three-fo......