Menchetti v. Wilson, 78-1192
| Decision Date | 05 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1192,78-1192 |
| Citation | 43 Colo.App. 19,597 P.2d 1054 |
| Parties | Mark James MENCHETTI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WILSON, Superintendent, Colorado State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Hawthorne & Meconi, P. C., Rocco F. Meconi, Canon City, for petitioner-appellant.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Patricia W. Robb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Petitioner filed this C.R.C.P. 106 action for relief in the nature of mandamus seeking to compel the superintendent of the Colorado State Penitentiary to alter the formula used for computing credit given for presentence confinement. The trial court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the method presently used by the superintendent is improper and therefore denied the petition. We affirm.
Petitioner was sentenced for a class 3 felony to a term of not less than 5 nor more than 6 years in the Colorado State Penitentiary. Prior to sentencing, petitioner had been incarcerated for approximately 10 months in the Arapahoe County Jail, and the mittimus ordered the penitentiary to credit this time against petitioner's sentence.
Petitioner's sentence was computed by Colorado State Penitentiary officials as follows: The 10 month presentence confinement was credited to both the minimum and maximum sentence, leaving the petitioner with a term to be served of not less than 4 years 2 months to not more than 5 years 2 months. Under the statutory method of computing good time credits for a sentence of 4 years 2 months, petitioner is required to serve a minimum of 28 months before being eligible for parole.
Petitioner contends that the superintendent should be compelled to compute the sentence by first using a statutory method to compute good time credit based on a 5 to 6 year term. This would require petitioner to serve a minimum of 321/2 months before being eligible for parole. From this figure petitioner contends that the 10 months spent in presentence confinement should be deducted, making him eligible for parole after 221/2 months in the State Penitentiary. By deducting presentence confinement time after determining good time and similar credits, the petitioner's method of computation would shorten the total incarceration time for those inmates, like petitioner, who have credit for presentence confinement.
An analysis of the statutes relating to sentencing convinces us that the computation method presently used by the superintendent is consistent with statutory requirements. There is no statutory requirement that the good time and other credits of §§ 17-20-104, 17-20-105, and 17-20-107, C.R.S.1973, be credited against presentence confinement. Petitioner's method of computation would result in good time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Plati
...remedy when the agency or officer has discretion. See Ahern v. Baker, 366 P.2d 366, 369 (Colo. 1961); Menchetti v. Wilson, 597 P.2d 1054, 1056 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979) ("C.R.C.P. 106 relief in the nature of mandamus will be granted only in cases where a clear legal duty exists for an administr......
-
Jones v. Martinez, 89SA406
...Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735, 738 (Colo.1989). See also, People v. Bastardo, 725 P.2d 88, 89 (Colo.App.1986); Menchetti v. Wilson, 43 Colo.App. 19, 597 P.2d 1054, 1055 (1979).6 Parole of an inmate by the parole board may be mandatory or discretionary depending on the sentencing statute ap......
- Srb v. Board of County Com'rs, Larimer County
-
Sherman v. City of Colorado Springs Planning Commission
...Mandamus is appropriate to compel performance of a non-discretionary ministerial function. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2); Menchetti v. Wilson, 43 Colo.App. 19, 597 P.2d 1054 (1979). Thus, if a plan submitted complies with all the requirements of the ordinance, and all the procedures for plan approval ......