Taylor v. Franzen
| Decision Date | 28 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-3,80-3 |
| Citation | 420 N.E.2d 1203,51 Ill.Dec. 645,93 Ill.App.3d 1152 |
| Parties | , 51 Ill.Dec. 645 Kenneth P. TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gayle FRANZEN and James Greer, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; Carl H. Becker, judge.
Richard J. Habiger, Prison Legal Aid, Carbondale, Sandra K. Delzell, Senior Law Student, for petitioner-appellant.
Tyrone C. Fahner, Atty. Gen., Melvourne A. Noel, Jr., Mark L. Rotert, Anita Donath, Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, for respondents-appellees.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING
On rehearing, the respondent contends that the writ of mandamus ordered by this Court, 93 Ill.App.2d 758, 48 Ill.Dec. 840, 417 N.E.2d 242, is inappropriate because it would require the Prison Review Board to act beyond the scope of its authority by holding a hearing to determine whether the petitioner's work release status was properly revoked. We have not so held.
Rather, we have held that a substantial amount of the petitioner's good conduct time was revoked in violation of specific mandatory requirements of the regulations of the Department of Corrections, which were promulgated pursuant to statutory mandate. These violations are sufficiently explained in our original opinion and need not be recounted here. The fact that the revocation of good conduct time arose from an incident and proceedings relating to the revocation of work release status is collateral to our decision. The regulatory violations delineated in our decision pertain to the revocation of good conduct time, not the revocation of work release status.
Among other functions, the Prisoner Review Board is the board of review for cases involving the revocation of good conduct credits. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 1003-3-1(a)(2).) The Board is also authorized to review the conditions and length of a term of mandatory supervised release. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 1003-3-7, 1003-3-8.) As already noted in our original opinion, apparently the petitioner's mandatory supervised release at present is not scheduled to end until January 17, 1983. If the Board were to determine that the good conduct time in question was improperly revoked, the length of the mandatory supervised release term would be shortened.
The respondent also contends on rehearing that mandamus is an inappropriate remedy. However, this issue has been resolved to the contrary in our original opinion.
For the reasons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. Mason
...et seq.; Turner-El v. West, 811 N.E.2d 728, 733 (Ill. App. 2004) (citing Taylor v. Franzen, 417 N.E.2d 242, 247, aff'd on reh'g, 420 N.E.2d 1203 (Ill. App. 1981)). Count 5 shall therefore be dismissed without prejudice.Dismissal of Count 6 - Retaliation Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defen......
-
Lucio v. Santos
...See Turner-El v. West, 811 N.E.2d 728, 733 (Ill. App. 2004) (citing Taylor v. Franzen, 417 N.E.2d 242, 247, aff'd on reh'g, 420 N.E.2d 1203 (Ill. App. 1981)). The State of Illinois must first be afforded an opportunity, in a mandamus action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/14-101 et seq. to consider ......
-
Mosley v. Moran
...days of good conduct credits. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, Secs. 1003-3-2(a)(4), 1003-6-3(c) (1978); Taylor v. Franzen, 93 Ill.App.3d 1152, 51 Ill.Dec. 645, 646, 420 N.E.2d 1203, 1204 (1981). The plain language of the statute is ambiguous regarding whether the Board also reviews revocations of goo......
-
Turner-El v. West
...Franzen, 93 Ill.App.3d 758, 761, 48 Ill.Dec. 840, 417 N.E.2d 242, 244 (1981), supplemental opinion on rehearing, 93 Ill.App.3d 1152, 51 Ill.Dec. 645, 420 N.E.2d 1203 (1981). Mandamus may be used to compel a public officer to perform a duty that does not involve the exercise of discretion by......