Woods v. Whyte

• Decision Date: 10 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 14203,14203
• Citation: 162 W.Va. 157,247 S.E.2d 830
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Paul WOODS et al. v. William WHYTE, Supt., Huttonsville Correctional Center, et al.

Page 830

247 S.E.2d 830

162 W.Va. 157

Paul WOODS et al. v. William WHYTE, Supt., Huttonsville Correctional Center, et al.

No. 14203.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Oct. 10, 1978.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In a habeas corpus proceeding where prisoners allege but do not prove that they are being illegally held, relief will be denied.

2. The statutes establishing good time credit for inmates, W.Va.Code, 28-5-27a (1951) and 28-5-28 (1977) were intended by the Legislature to enhance prison discipline and do not contemplate good time credit for parolees.

John G. Ours, Petersburg, for relators.

Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen., Pamela D. Tarr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for respondents.

NEELY, Justice:

The Court granted this original writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of evaluating two claims: first, that relators' prison discharge dates have been computed in a way which extends prison service beyond the expiration of their sentences, and second, that good-time credit is illegally withheld from parolees. We hold that relators have not sustained their allegations concerning extended terms of sentence and that the statutes establishing good-time credit and parole do not contemplate good time for parolees. Consequently, we deny relief.

I

The relators are convicted felons who were returned to the Huttonsville Correctional Facility after violating parole. They allege in their brief that upon return, their sentences were increased by the amount of good time they would have earned had they remained in custody. After examination of respondents' detailed affidavits, we find that this is not the case. Relators' mistake is understandable, however, given the complexity of the good-time computation system. ¹ Under W.Va.Code 28-5-27 (1923) and 28-5-27a (1951), ² there are two types of good time available:

1) Law-Allowable Good Time W.Va.Code, 28-5-27 (1923): This authorizes as much as 10 days per month for inmates who have not violated any prison rules in a given month.

2) Warden's Good Time W.Va.Code, 28-5-27a (1951): This authorizes the warden to grant additional good time at his discretion which he appears to have set at 41/2 days per month.

Based upon these statutes, three hypothetical discharge dates can be calculated for an inmate when he is admitted to the Facility:

I) Full-Time date The day on which the inmate will have served his maximum sentence. The Facility cannot hold an inmate beyond this date.

II) Expiration date The date an inmate will be released if he earns all of his law-allowable good time. An inmate with no infractions against him will be released on this date by operation of law.

III) Minimum discharge date The earliest date an inmate can be released unless he is sooner paroled. This projection assumes that the maximum of both law-allowable and warden's good time will be earned.

In order to be released on the minimum discharge date, an inmate must earn the maximum amount of good time, or 141/2 days for an inmate serving ten or more years. When an inmate is returned from parole 141/2 days are added to the minimum discharge date (Not the full-time date) for every month he spent on parole. ³ Relators have consequently mistaken the minimum discharge date (a magic date in the imagination of many inmates) for the full time date, which explains their erroneous perception that 141/2 days have been added to their sentences for each month of parole.

II

Relators' second claim concerns the basis upon which the minimum discharge dates were revised, namely, that good time should be allowed to parolees. In asserting that good time should be granted to parolees, relators argue that parolees are among the best prisoners, and that the relators in particular offer especially compelling cases, because their parole was revoked for "technical" violations. However, good time is a purely statutory creation and is designed to advance the goal of improved prison discipline. W.Va.Code, 28-5-28 (1977). ⁴ Consequently, the stated purpose of good time does not apply to parolees, who are not part of the prison population and are not subject to its discipline.

The discipline and supervision of parolees is entrusted to the state Board of Probation and Parole by W.Va.Code, 62-12-18 (1959). The Board may, if it deems a parolee rehabilitated, release him from further supervision and terminate his sentence. The Board, unlike the custodial facilities, does not need good time to motivate parolees to good behavior as the loss of parole itself is a powerful incentive.

We are led to the inescapable conclusion that the legislature did not intend that good time credit apply to parolees, and as the relators have not proven their claim to confinement in excess of maximum sentences, the writs prayed for are denied.

Writs denied.

1 Recent changes in the good-time statute may...