Gullett v. State, CR-91-1854
| Decision Date | 13 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | CR-91-1854 |
| Citation | 613 So.2d 400 |
| Parties | Louis GULLETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Louis Gullett, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Horace Lynn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Louis Gullett, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appellant alleged in his petition that § 14-9-41(h), Code of Alabama 1975, added by amendment in 1991 requires that all inmates serving sentences of 15 years' imprisonment or less must be awarded correctional incentive time, calculated retroactively to the date the inmate begins to serve his sentence. Section 14-9-41(h) states:
"(h) Deductions for good behavior, work habits and cooperation, or good conduct shall be interpreted to give authorized good time retroactively, to those offenders convicted of crimes committed after May 19, 1980, except those convicted of crimes of the unlawful sale or distribution of controlled substances as enumerated in Title 13A and in former chapter 2 of Title 20, and for any sexual offenses as enumerated in chapter 6, Title 13A, provided however that the commissioner of the department of corrections shall have the prison records of all inmates, who become eligible under this article, reviewed and shall disqualify any such inmate from being awarded good time under this article at his discretion."
Specifically, he contends that § 14-9-41(h) takes away the commissioner's discretion to grant incentive good time retroactively and that the commissioner's refusal to grant incentive good time denied him due process.
To trigger the due process protections of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), a liberty interest must be involved. The real question here is whether the 1991 amendment to § 14-9-41 created a liberty interest.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in Shelton v. Wright, 439 So.2d 55, 57 (Ala.1983), stated:
As stated by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: " 'When [a] statute is framed in discretionary terms there is not a liberty interest created.' " Conlogue v. Shinbaum, 949 F.2d 378, 380 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 841, 113 S.Ct. 123, 121 L.Ed.2d 79 (1992), quoting Thomas v. Sellers, 691 F.2d 487, 489 (11th Cir.1982) (per curiam). There is no language in § 14-9-41, as amended in 1991 to add subsection (h), "which places a substantive limitation on the exercise of discretion by officials charged with the responsibility of deciding which inmates will be granted correctional incentive time status." Beavers v. Alabama Legislators, [91-T-1485-N, February 21, 1992] (M.D.Ala.1992).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Boykins
...IGT. See Coslett v. State, 697 So.2d 61 (Ala.Crim. App.1997); Parker v. State, 648 So.2d 653 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); Gullett v. State, 613 So.2d 400 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992).2 As we explained in "`The opportunity to earn "good time" is a privilege, not a right, in Alabama. Prisoners may earn highe......
-
Collins v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, CR-03-0285.
...§ 14-9-41, Coslett v. State, 697 So.2d 61 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), Parker v. State, 648 So.2d 653 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), and Gullett v. State, 613 So.2d 400 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), that Boykins does not have a liberty interest in the DOC's ruling his request to qualify for IGT. Boykins is not assert......
-
Parker v. State
...v. Shinbaum, 949 F.2d 378, 380 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 841, 113 S.Ct. 123, 121 L.Ed.2d 79 (1992); Gullett v. State, 613 So.2d 400, 401 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). The appellant relies on the distinction between the terms "confinement" and "sentence of imprisonment" made by this Court......
-
Block v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, CR-04-1417.
...§ 14-9-41, Coslett v. State, 697 So.2d 61 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), Parker v. State, 648 So.2d 653 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), and Gullett v. State, 613 So.2d 400 (Ala.Crim. App.1992), that Boykins does not have a liberty interest in the DOC's ruling on his request to qualify for IGT. Boykins is not as......