Jacobs v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BASCHAB.
• Citation: 900 So.2d 485
• Parties: Mickey JACOBS v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
• Decision Date: 29 October 2004

900 So.2d 485

Mickey JACOBS
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-03-1024.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 29, 2004.

900 So.2d 486

Mickey Jacobs, pro se

Charles Crook, gen. counsel, and Albert Sim Butler, asst. gen. counsel, Department of Corrections.

BASCHAB, Judge.

The appellant, Mickey Jacobs, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that he was denied less restrictive custody because the Alabama Department of Corrections ("DOC") allegedly improperly classified him as a sex offender. After DOC responded, the circuit court summarily denied the petition. This appeal followed.

Initially, we must determine whether this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, rather than this court, has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

We have previously held that a prisoner does not have a liberty interest in a particular custody or security classification. See Handley v. State, 549 So.2d 630, 631 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 279 n. 9, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976). "`[T]he classification scheme adopted by the Alabama prison system to determine the custody status of prisoners "is not arbitrary and capricious, but reasonable and appropriate."'" Hill v. State, 594 So.2d 246, 248 (Ala.Crim. App.1992) (quoting Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1441 (11th Cir.1991)) (quoting in turn Hendking v. Smith, 781 F.2d 850, 852 (11th Cir.1986), which holds that a prison regulation denying sex offenders minimum security status does not violate the Equal Protection Clause). "[C]ustody

900 So.2d 487

classifications in prison do not amount to matters in which the inmate has a constitutional right." Handley, 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 incentive good time ("IGT"). The circuit court treated his petition as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed it, and he appealed to this court. After we affirmed the circuit court's judgment, the Alabama Supreme Court granted his petition for a writ of certiorari

"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."

Ex parte Boykins, 862 So.2d at 588. Because the opinion in Ex parte Boykins represented a departure from established procedures, we quote from it extensively.

In Ex parte Boykins, when reversing this court's judgment, the Alabama Supreme Court stated:

"The record reveals that in March 1973 Boykins was convicted of first-degree murder and was sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment. 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.

". . . .

"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

...