Mastracchio v. Superior Court, 1616

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JOSLIN; PAOLINO
• Citation: Mastracchio v. Superior Court, 98 R.I. 111, 200 A.2d 10 (R.I. 1964)
• Decision Date: 30 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 1616,1616
• Parties: . M. P. Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Page 10

200 A.2d 10

98 R.I. 111

Gerald MASTRACCHIO v. SUPERIOR COURT.

M. P. No. 1616.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 30, 1964.

Gerald Mastracchio, pro se.

J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Corinne P. Grande, Special Counsel, for the State.

JOSLIN, Justice.

This petition for certiorari was presented to us by a person confined at the adult correctional institutions, and was considered on briefs. The petitioner elected to present the case both before the superior court and here without the assistance of counsel. We review an order of the superior court refusing to grant the petitioner's application for an order restraining the warden of those institutions from denying him for time served subsequent to May 6, 1960, the effective date of P.L.1960, chap. 112, the enlarged benefits for good behavior awarded to prisoners pursuant to that chapter. The writ issued and pursuant thereto the pertinent papers have been certified to this court.

Because we are disposed to pass on the substance rather than the form of proceedings initiated by one in petitioner's circumstances we will review the action of the superior court, although we are unaware of any statutory or equity proceeding whereby what petitioner has designated a 'Petition For A Motion For A Restraining Order' is available for a determination of the issue raised therein. See Worrell v. Beach, 63 R.I. 95, 7 A.2d 666.

At the outset, respondent contends that certiorari does not lie to review alleged errors of law of an interlocutory order in circumstances where those errors might be reviewed on appeal after entry of a final decree. While respondent correctly states our ordinary practice, we deviate from it when the questions raised involve the construction of a legislative enactment and its conformity to the federal constitution. The legal issues thus raised are exceptional and sufficient to warrant the exercise of our discretion in granting the writ. Thayer Amusement Corp. v. Moulton, 63 R.I. 182, 7 A.2d 682, 124 A.L.R. 236.

This brings us to the substantial issue. The petitioner is serving consecutive sentences which were imposed prior to the enactment of chap 112. That act increased the good behavior deductions authorized under the preexisting statute.

The petitioner while conceding that the preexisting statute controls as to time served prior to May 6, 1960 contends that his federal constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws requires that chap. 112 governs in the computation of his credits for good behavior for time served subsequent to May 6, 1960. Stated otherwise he contends that his credits should be determined no differently from those of persons imprisoned subsequent to May 6, 1960. This precise issue was answered adversely to petitioner's contention in our Opinion to the Governor, 91 R.I. 187, 162 A.2d 814, where we advised that the enlarged benefits of chap. 112 could...