Warren v. State, CR-91-124
Decision Date | 01 May 1992 |
Docket Number | CR-91-124 |
Citation | 598 So.2d 1058 |
Parties | Johnny Lee WARREN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Johnny Lee Warren, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal involves the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted in November 1979 of rape and sodomy and was sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment. He contends that his due process rights have been violated because he has been denied good time credits. Specifically, he contends that he is entitled to earn deductions from his sentence pursuant to § 14-9-1, Code of Alabama 1975, and further deductions pursuant to § 14-9-4, Code of Alabama 1975. Both of these sections were repealed (effective May 19, 1980) pursuant to the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act (§§ 14-9-40 through -44, Code of Alabama 1975).
In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, the State argued that the petitioner is not eligible for incentive time pursuant to § 14-9-41(e), Code of Alabama 1975, because his sentence is in excess of 10 years 1 and that, therefore, he received the full range of due process to which he was entitled. The trial judge granted the State's motion and entered judgment accordingly.
It is well settled that "a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper procedure to test whether the state has properly calculated the amount of time an inmate must serve in prison." Morris v. State, 565 So.2d 288, 289 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Risner v. State, 522 So.2d 336 (Ala.Cr.App.1988). Without determining whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount of good time credit that he alleges he is entitled to in his petition, it is clear that his good time credit should be calculated pursuant to §§ 14-9-1 through -4, Code of Alabama 1975 (statutory good time), and §§ 14-9-20 through -25, Code of Alabama 1975 (incentive good time).
In Powers v. State, 546 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), this Court held:
See also Ex parte Powers, 546 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1988) ( ).
Therefore, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court to determine whether the petitioner has been afforded the proper computation of good time credits. A return is is to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brooks v. State
...that the law in effect at the time of the commission of the crime governs a prisoner's eligibility for good time. See Warren v. State, 598 So.2d 1058 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). A prisoner sentenced under an earlier, less favorable sentence reduction statute generally has no right to complain of the......
-
Archie v. State, CR-93-2117
...... See also Warren v. State, 598 So.2d 1058 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), also cited by Archie. In general discussion, Archie also mentions Cox v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 ......
-
Carlile v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...who committed offenses prior to May 19, 1980." Cox v. State, 628 So.2d 1075, 1075 n. 1 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). See also Warren v. State, 598 So.2d 1058 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); and § 14-9-43, Ala.Code 1975. Because he was entitled to earn IGT under former § 14-9-21, Ala.Code 1975, Carlile maintain......
-
Grier v. State, CR-94-2177
...in prison.' Morris v. State, 565 So.2d 288, 289 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Risner v. State, 522 So.2d 336 (Ala.Cr.App.1988)." Warren v. State, 598 So.2d 1058 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). We cannot tell from the record how much time, if any, the appellant is being given credit for; therefore, we must remand......