Ronnie Williams VS Henry Goines Time Computation Analyst for Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2012 CA 1717 RONNIE WILLiAM5 VERSUS G LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS ET AL Judgment Rendered APR 2 6 2013 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No 598498 The Honorable Kay Bates Judge Presiding C f C If Ronnie Williams lant Appe Plaintiff St Pro Se Gabriel Louisiana William L Kline Baton Counsel for Defendant Appellee Department of Public Safety and Corrections James M Secretary LeBlanc Rouge Louisiana BEFORE GUIDRY CRA1N AND THERIOT JJ 1 iT C dy y 1 THERIOT J Ronnie Williams an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court affirming DPSC final s administrative decision denying the relief Williams requested through an administrative remedy procedure ARP For the following reasons we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 28 1994 Williams was convicted of armed robbery and attempted first degree murder He was sentenced to serve twenty 25 five years at hard labor for attempted first degree murder and fifty 50 years at hard labor for armed robbery each sentence to run concurrent with one another His total sentence before any computation for good time credit was fifty 50 years at hard labor On September 23 1994 Williams applied for good time relief at the recluction rate of thirty 30 days for every thirty 30 days actually served in custody pursuant to La R 15 The prison warden approved the S 5713 application on November 9 1994 and Williams received good time credit from the beginning of his incarceration on February 21 1993 By Acts 2010 No 649 effective October 15 2010 the Legislature amended La R 15 by adding subparagraph b to provide S 571 1 B 3 a Except as pravided in Paragraph B of this Section 2 every inmate in the custody of DPSC who has been convicted of a felony except an inmate convicted a second time of a crime of violence as defined by R 142 and sentenced to S B The Commissioner of the 19 JDC noted in his screening recommendation that all of the parcies named by Williams as defendants except for DPSC should be dismissed since only DPSC is a proper party in actions regarding judicial review of ARPs La R I5 Accordingly the court dismissed with S 1I b I A 77 prejudice all the named defendants except for DPSC Prior to the enactment of Legislative Act 1099 on January l 1997 which amended La R 15 to S 5713 require that persons convicted of crimes enumerated under La R 142 serve a minimum eighty S B five percent of their sentence persons convictzd of violent crimes were eligible for good time pursuant to Act 138 which became effective 7anuary I 1992 Williams convictions which occurred in 1994 therefore s are governed by Act 138 2 imprisonment for a stated number of years or months or when the sentencing court has denied or conditioned eligibility for good time as provided in R 15 may earn in lieu of S 537 incentive wages a diminution by good behavior to be known as good time The secretary shall establish regulations far awarding and recording of good time and shall determine when good time has been earned toward diminution of sentence The amount of diminution of sentence allowed under the provisions of this Section shall be at the rate of thirty days for every five thirty days in actual custody b The provisions of Subparagaph a of this Paragraph shall be applicable to persons convicted of offenses on or after January l 1992 and who are not serving a sentence for the following offenses i A sex crime as defined in R 15 S 541 ii A crime of violence as defined in R 14 S2 B iii Any offense which would constitute a crime of violence as defined in R 14 or a sex offense as defined S 2 B in R 15 regardless ofthe date of conviction S 541 Subparagraph b in its entirery was the amendment to La R S 5713 15 made effective by Act 649 3 Williams made another application to the warden to have his diminution computed in accardance with Act 649 but his application was denied Williams then filed his first ARP claiming he was entitled to the new computation under Act 649 since he was convicted after January 1 1992 and had not been convicted a second time of a crime of violence The prison denied his ARP stating that while he was convicted after January 1 1992 subparagraph b also denies good time to those persons convicted of crimes of violence defined under La R 14 and both of the S 2 B convictions for which Williams is serving a sentence are for crimes of violence Williams filed his second ARP to DPSC to which the secretary of DPSC responded that since Williams had not been convicted of a second crime of violence and since his offenses were committed prior to January 1 1997 he was eligible for the good time computation under Act 138 The 35 days for 30 days credit computation enacted by Act 649 was later repealed by Act 186 of 201 I and Act I 10 of 2012 however since these Acts are o applicable to persons convicted on or after August 15 ly 201 land August I 2012 respectively they have no relevance to the instant appeal Williams had no been convicted of a crime of violence prior to his convictions for armed robbery and attempted first degree murder which were made to run concurrent with each other 3 however since he was currently serving time for a crime of violence conviction he was not eligible for the good time computation ofAct 649 Williams applied to the 19 JDC for judicial review The court s commissioner found that Williams claim did not take into account the s whole of La R 15 and while B declares eligibility for S 5713 B a 1 good time at the rate of 35 days for 30 days B provides the b 1 exceptions to the beneficiaries of B The commissioner found that a 1 Williams was ineligible for good time under Act 649 but since he was found eligible for good time under Act 138 he would continue to receive credit at the rate of 30 days for every 30 days served in actual custody The court adopted the commissioner srecommendation affirming DPSC decision s Williams then filed the instant appeal STANDARD OF REVIEW Inmates aggrieved by a decision rendered by DPSC may seek judicial review pursuant to La R 15 The standard of review is set forth in S 1177 La R 15 as follows S 1177 9 A The court may reverse or modify the decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings inferences conclusions or decisions are a ln violation of constitutional or statutory provisions b In excess of the statutory authority of the agency c Made upon unlawful procedure d Affected by other error of law e Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion fl Manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable probative and substantial evidence on the whole record In the application of the rule where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by firsthand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not due regard shall be given to the agency determination of s credibility issues Victorian v Stalder 1999 p 5 La App 1 Cir 7770 2260 6 00 14 2d So 382 384 385 4 DISCUSSION We agree with the judgment of the trial court as well as the rulings made by the prison and DPSC on Williams ARPs At the time of his s conviction Act 138 was in effect and he was approved to receive good time accordingly See State v Sugasti 2001 p La 6 820 So 3407 4 02 21 2d 518 520 Upon the enactment of Act 649 La R 15 read S 5713 a 1 B that every inmate in the custody of DPSC who has been convicted of a felony except an inmate convicted a second time of a crime of violence as defined by R 14 may earn good time credit at the rate of 35 days for S 2 B every 30 days served In his brief Williams misreads Act 649 as stating that an inmate convicted a second time of a crime of violence shall earn good time credit at the rate of 35 days for every 30 days served but from a plain reading of the Act found in the record this is not the case Williams is ineligible under subparagraph b since he is convicted and serving time ii far not only one but two crimes of violence CONCLUSION When La 15 is read as a whole Williams cannot receive B 3 571 good time at the rate of 35 days for every 30 days served However since he was approved in 1994 to receive good time at the rate of 30 days of credit for every 30 days actually served when Act 138 made it possible for an inmate of his offender status to do so he will continue to receive good time credit at that rate DECREE The ruling of the 19 JDC affirming DPSC decision to deny s s Williams ARP is affirmed All costs in this appeal are assessed to the appellant Ronnie Williams AFFIRMED 5
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.
