Rondoni v. Sherman
| Decision Date | 17 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 639,639 |
| Parties | John J. RONDONI v. Paul D. SHERMAN. C. Q. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Pontarelli & Berberian, Aram K. Berberian, Providence, for petitioner.
J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Archie Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is a petition for declaratory relief, brought under Public Laws 1959, chapter 90, by the petitioner, a prisoner in the adult correctional institutions, against the respondent, assistant director for correctional services, praying that the superior court declare his legal relations under General Laws 1956, § 13-2-44. Upon examination of the petition and applicable statute, the superior court justice concluded that a question of doubt and importance existed which so affects the merits of the controversy that it ought to be determined by this court before further proceedings. Such question has been certified to us under the provisions of G.L.1956, § 9-24-26.
The record shows that petitioner was sentenced to three years at the men's reformatory for driving off a car without the consent of the owner; that subsequently he was sentenced to serve three years for escape, the latter sentence to run consecutively; that during the intervening period between the sentencings he was absent from the prison some six years and eleven months; that during this period the general assembly enacted P.L.1955, chap. 3549, now G.L.1956, § 13-2-44, the 'good time' law, which reads as follows:
The respondent proposes to allow for good time under this act three days per month on petitioner's current sentence, whereas petitioner contends that as he had a total of three years, six months and five days of unserved time upon his return to the adult correctional institutions he ought to be released eighty-four days sooner. It is agreed that petitioner has not been disciplined for bad conduct during the term of his service of sentences.
Based on these facts the superior court justice certified the following question for our determination: 'Is the length of the term upon which computation of good time is to be made, under G.L.1956, 13-2-44, to include the total of consecutive sentences which have been imposed upon petitioner herein or is the word 'term' in said statute to be confined to the length of time being served under petitioner's last consecutive sentence?'
The attorney general, counsel for respondent in the latter's capacity as a public official, noting that G.L.1956, § 9-24-26, relates to the certification of questions arising in equity or cases following the course of equity, and further noting that the proceeding in which the question certified to us arose in a case at law, cites for our consideration Spaulding v. Martin, 66 R.I. 367, 19 A.2d 305, wherein it was held that cases at law cannot be properly certified to this court under the provisions of the section relating to cases in equity or cases following the course of equity. However, the attorney general does not urge that this court should decline to answer the question on this ground. He has argued the issue in keeping with his position as an officer of the court, cognizant that the certification is of questionable validity.
We are aware of and are in full accord with the rule as enunciated in the Spaulding case, but we are also mindful that if the question had been certified pursuant to the authority of § 9-24-27, it would presumably be properly before us. It cannot be determined whether the trial justice purposed to rely on § 9-24-26, or whether the reference thereto is a typographical error or other inadvertence. Whatever the reason, we deem it advisable in the circumstances peculiar to this case to assume that the question has been certified pursuant to § 9-24-27, the relevant provisions of which are as follows:
'Whenever...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweeney v. Notte
...the provisions of § 9-24-27 in a proceeding brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. Indeed, in Rondoni v. Sherman, 90 R.I. 322, at page 326, 158 A.2d 267, 269, we indicated such doubts. However, both cases involved serious questions of immediate import and for that reason we di......
-
State v. Ouimette
...engaging in institutional industries. And, finally, that statute, as amended shortly after this court's decision in Rondoni v. Sherman, 90 R.I. 322, 158 A.2d 267 (1960), negates the holding in that case and provides that "for purposes of computing the number of days to be deducted for good ......
-
Gomes v. Wall
...this particular inmate was entitled to receive the maximum monthly good-time credits allowed by law. See, e.g., Rondoni v. Sherman, 90 R.I. 322, 323, 158 A.2d 267, 267-68 (1960) (prisoner brought action for declaration of rights under good-time Next, relying on this Court's decision in Barb......
-
Grieco v. Langlois, 180-M
...is the reward which the prison administration holds out for compliance with its rules and regulations, and, as we said in Rondoni v. Sherman, 90 R.I. 322, 158 A.2d 267, is an incentive for his good behavior. To make his right to obtain that reward turn on the discretion of the warden and th......