Freddie Cann VS Louisiana Department Public Safety and Corrections

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
N07 DESIGNA TEllFOR YUBLiCATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST GRCUIT 2012 CA 1415 FREDDIE CANN VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS 11 a APR 1 0 2013 Judgment Rendered ALED APP FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE ATE S1 OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 600076 HE IHONORABLF R MICHA LCALDWELL JUDGE x Fr Cann Winufield Appellant Plaintiff Louisiana Se Pro Debra A Attomey for Defendant Appellee Baton Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections Rutledge e u Rc Louisiana BEFORE KUIIN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ ONALD Mcl J Plainriff Fredclie Cann an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Depaitinent oF Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals the trial court s judgment aftirming in part and r in part the DPSC determination that eversing s denied his request for recalculation of ood tiine credits For the following reasons we affirm round Bacl Plaintiff an inmate in the custody of the DPSC filed this appeal of APR 491 2010 PCC seeking judicial review in accordance with L R 15 et A S 1171 seq Plau tifforiginally sought additional good time credits far two sentences that he was serving In the first of the two sentences he was convicted and sentenced in 1983 under Ouachita Parish docket 41127 In the second of the two sentences he was convicted and sentenced in 1994 under Claiborne Parish docket 17401 s Plaintiff claims were b on Act 649 of 2010 that amended L R sed A S A 1 313 571 15 vhich allows eligible offenders to retroactively earn increased good time credits 35 days for every 30 served for convictions that occurred after ber31 1993 Decen Plaintiff was previously earning 30 days of good time far every 30 days he served on both sentences while he was in the custody of the DPSC until he was released on good time parole in 1998 In 2001 plaintiff absconded supervision wllich resulted ii revocation of his parole and reincarceration in 2006 Plaintiff claimed that he was owed an additional five days per month of good time on both sentcnces back to the date of sentencing or 1992 whichever is earlier The DPSC denied his request as to both sentences The trial court in a judgment dated April 16 2012 af the DPSC decision bn the Ouachita Parish conviction from rmed 1983 and reversed the decision on the Claiborne Parish conviction from 1994 The case was remanded to lhe DPSC to recalculate his good time on the latter couviction On May 24 2012 Plaintiff filed a notice o appeal of the April 16 f 2012 judgment and an order of appeal was signed on May 31 2012 Plainriff does not designate whether he intended to appeal all or only a part of the judgment ln his sole assignrnent of error he states The Court was in error when it allowed thc calculat done by the Departinent of Corrections to not be carrected in ions compliance with Act 649 of the Louisiana Legislature It would seem that he would not intend to appeal the part of the judgment pertaining to the Claibarne Parish conviction since it was remanded with instructions to give him the credit that he requested n his brief he states the issues or questions of law to be Whether Petitioncr conviction of 1983 is subject to retroactive application of s good time Act 649 by Legislature The brief goes on to discuss this conviction and does not discuss the 1994 conviction Therefore we will only address the earlier conviction 1983 Ouachita Parish Sentence As to the 19 Ouachita parish sentence DPSC denied any additional good 3 time credits on the grounds that the plaintiff was convicted in 1983 well befare the effective date of Act 649 January 1 1992 Therefore the changes in Act 649 did not apply to the 1983 Ouachita sentencc Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to the application of the benefits of Act 649 to his older sentence based on the rule of lenity however the rule of lenity only applies when the law in question is arnbiguous See Nloskal v United States 498 U 103 107 111 S Ct 461 S 08 465 112 L Ed 2d 449 1990 In tlle present case the effective date of Act 649 A L RS 15 emphasis added clearly states b 1 3B 571 b The provisions of Subparagraph a of this Paragraph shall be applicable to persons convicted of offenses on or after January 1 992 and who are not serving a sentcnce for the following offenses rtone of which are applicable iri tcase his 3 We tind no merit to Plaintii argument concerning the good time credits on s f the Ouacliita parisll sentence Accocdingly we agree with the trial court denial of s s uest plaintiff rec to recalculaYe his good time credits regarding his Ouachita parish setltence Conclusion Act 649 applies to convictions after January 1 1992 Since the plaintiff in e tl 1983 Ouachita parish sentence was clearly convicted before the effective date Act 649 is inapplicable Accoi after careful consideration of the dingly administrative record and ha considered the applicable law and rules for ing reasons het stated we agree with the tria court decision to affirm the s s DPSC decision to deny relief on the 1983 Ouachita parish sentence Costs are assessed against the appellant RMEU AFF 4

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.