Freddie Cann VS James Leblanc, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 CA 2071 FREDDIE CANN VERSUS JAMES LEBLANC SECRETARY LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CORRECTIONS udgment rendered May 7 2010 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court No 578458 Honorable Todd Hemandez Judge FREDDIE CANN IN PROPER PERSON KEITHVILLE LA PLAINTIFF APPELLANT WILLIAM KLINE ATTORNEY FOR BATON ROUGE LA DEFENDANTAPPELLEE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND PE MGREW 33 PETTIGREW J In this case petitioner an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC filed a request for relief pursuant to La R 15 S 1177 seeking judicial review of the final agency decision rendered under Administrative Remedy Procedure ARP Number DWCC 2009 0 369 concerning what petitioner alleged was an illegal extension by DPSC of his sentence from the original full term date set by the sentencing court s Petitioner request for credit for time served while on parole supervision was reviewed and denied at the first and second steps of the ARP as follows When an offender s parole supervision is revoked the offender shall serve the remainder of his sentence as of the date of his release on supervision pursuant to La R S 5 571 15 This means that you serve the balance from your goodtimeparole supervision date to your original full term date A commissioner at the 19th Judicial District Court reviewed the record and recommended that petitioner suit be dismissed as s frivolous for failure to state a cause of action Petitioner timely filed a traversal of that recommendation reiterating his arguments to the court On July 16 2009 a judgment was signed by the trial court adopting the written recommendation of the commissioner and dismissing petitioner suit at his costs as frivolous s This appeal by petitioner followed On appeal petitioner contends DPSC erred in failing to award him credit for time served while on parole Petitioner argues as follows with regard to this issue f I the petitioner had a 30 year sentence and served 15 years he should only have to serve 15 years on Parole then if he satisfactorily completed five 5 years on Parole then was revoked for a technical violation he would only have to serve ten 10 years in the Louisiana Department of Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 5provides in pertinent part as follows 571 A 1 When a prisoner committed to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections is released because of diminution of sentence pursuant to this Part he shall be released as if released on parole C If such person parole is revoked by the parole board for violation of the terms of s parole the person shall be recommitted to the department for the remainder of the original full term 2 Corrections because this is the time that is left on his sentence of thirty years imposed by the sentencing court Thus petitioner asserts that when returned to custody after his parole violation the computation of the remainder of the original full term of his sentence should include the time he spent released on parole This argument was made and rejected in the case of Bancroft v Louisiana Dept of Corrections 931135 p 3 La App 1 Cir 4 635 So 738 740 in 94 8 2d which this court concluded that there was no merit to the inmate argument that he was s entitled to credit against his sentence for the time spent free under parole conditions Citing Parkerson v Lynn 556 So 91 95 La App 1 Cir 1989 writ denied 563 2d 2d So 1151 La 1990 the Bancroft court noted The purposes of parole and probation are for the rehabilitation of the criminal and are acts of grace to one convicted of a crime Because parole andor probation are less restrictive on the offender sfreedom than penal incarceration and are acts of grace to the offender violation of parole andor probation has consequences such as no entitlement to credit against the offender sentence for the time spent on probation andor parole s Citations omitted Bancroft 93 1135 at 3 635 So at 740 2d Based on our review of the record and relevant jurisprudence we find no error by DPSC in refusing to award credit against the remainder of petitioner sentence for the s time he spent free under parole conditions We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court which dismissed petitioner suit as frivolous s We issue this summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 216 56 7 2A and 8 All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against petitioner Freddie Cann AFFIRMED 91
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
