People ex rel. Abner v. Kinney

• Decision Date: 22 January 1964
• Docket Number: No. 37981,37981
• Citation: 195 N.E.2d 651,30 Ill.2d 201
• Parties: The PEOPLE ex rel. Jess ABNER, Jr., Petitioner, v. Charles F. KINNEY et al., Respondents.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 651

195 N.E.2d 651

30 Ill.2d 201

The PEOPLE ex rel. Jess ABNER, Jr., Petitioner, v. Charles F. KINNEY et al., Respondents.

No. 37981.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 22, 1964.

Thomas P. Sullivan, Chicago (Thompson, Raymond, Mayer, & Jenner, Chicago, of counsel), for petitioner.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield (William C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow, and Richard A. Michael, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for respondents.

HERSHEY, Justice.

This is an original petition in this court for writ of mandamus directed to respondents Charles F. Kinney, chairman, and Henry S. Wise, James C. Craven, Louis Zahn and Douglass R. Turner, associate members of the Parole and Pardon Board of the Department of Public Safety of the State of Illinois, to compel respondents within a reasonable time to grant petitioner, Jess Abner, Jr., a hearing to determine whether he shall be released on parole from the sentence imposed on him in 1954 as required by section 1 of the Sentence and Parole Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 38, par. 801.

Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for from 10 to 20 years in 1954. He has served the minimum term of his sentence, less good time credit. Section 1 of the Sentence and Parole Act provides: 'Every person sentenced and committed to the penitentiary shall, in the discretion of the Parole and Pardon Board, be eligible to parole under rules and regulations adopted therefor by the Parole and Pardon Board, such paroles to be as follows: * * * a person sentenced for an indeterminate term shall not be eligible for parole until he has served the minimum limit fixed by the court, good time being allowed as provided by law.'

The 'good time' regulations promulgated by the Department of Public Safety provide that a person serving an indeterminate sentence with a minimum of 15 years is eligible to receive a parole hearing after he has served 8 years and 9 months.

Petitioner was eligible to receive a hearing before the Parole Board on April 3, 1963, and he applied for such a hearing. On April 12, 1963, petitioner received a letter from the clerk of the Parole and Pardon Board that his case was continued to make grade. In response to a letter written by petitioner's counsel to the superintendent of the Parole Board he received a letter from such superintendent that under date of January 27, 1955, petitioner was demoted to grade E under the Progressive Merit System and again to Grade E on January 9, 1963, and that he would appear when he regained Grade A for the proper length of time. Petitioner has never had a hearing before the Parole Board.

The refusal to grant petitioner a hearing is based upon Rule 5 of the rules of the Parole and Pardon Board which provides: 'Only those prisoners who are in 'Grade A' as determined by the wardens of the respective institutions under the 'Progressive Merit System,' and shall have been in 'Grade A' for three consecutive months, at least ten days prior to the date of the subcommittee sessions at the several institutions, shall be entitled to consideration for parole.' This rule was promulgated under section 7 of the Sentence and Parole Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 38, par. 807) which authorizes the Board to establish rules and regulations not inconsistent with the act under which prisoners may be allowed to go on parole.

Rule 4 of the rules and regulations of the Parole Board in part reads: 'No prisoner will be given a hearing who is out of grade, in isolation or deadlock. His case will be continued until his release from the aforementioned unit, or until he is in Grade the proper length of time.'

A similar rule has been adopted by the Department of Public Safety which provides in part: 'The inmate must be in A grade at least three months and have served him minimum sentence, less 'Good Time', before he will be eligible to a parole hearing by the Parole and Pardon Board.'

Petitioner contends respondents have no authority to impose conditions precedent to parole hearings in addition to those established by section 1 of the Sentence and Parole Act, nor to delegate to officials of the several prisons the power to determine that certain prisoners who have served the requisite portions of their sentences shall not be given a parole hearing. The practice of refusing to permit prisoners who are not in Grade A to have parole hearings has been followed by the Parole Board for many years.

The Progressive Merit System is as follows: There are five grades, A through E. Every person sentenced to the penitentiary is automatically placed in Grade C, the neutral grade. If the prisoner's behavior is 'satisfactory,' he is promoted to Grade B in 3 months, and to Grade A in another 3 months. Thereafter, he may be reduced in grade upon order of the Prison Merit Staff, which at Stateville is composed of the warden, three senior captains, two assistant wardens, and a merit staff clerk. The Merit Staff may, if it chooses, reduce the prisoner to any grade it deems fit. The prisoner has no opportunity to be heard, nor is there any appeal.

Examples of prison rules, a violation of which may result in a disciplinary report and a reduction in grade are: having other than the designated number of blankets in cell, covering of any type on dresser, singing or whistling in cell, talking while bathing, placing shoes on bench while bathing, taking more food than can be eaten (edibles are not...