Benjamin Blade v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction et al.

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. 04-655

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

BENJAMIN BLADE

Appellant

v.

LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al

Appellees

Opinion Delivered June 16, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NO. CV 2003-887-2-5, HONORABLE FRED D. DAVIS III, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM

Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree battery and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He did not lodge an appeal. Appellant subsequently filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, the county in which he is incarcerated, a motion for declaratory judgment alleging that the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) should have reduced his sentence by applying meritorious good-time credit. Appellant also claimed that he suffered prejudice because he opted not to appeal his conviction as he was under the impression that his sentence would be reduced by his good time. The circuit court denied the motion, and from that order comes this appeal.

We have held that there are four requisite conditions one must meet before declaratory relief may be granted: (1) there must exist a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ross-Lawhon, 290 Ark. 578, 579, 721 S.W.2d 658, 658 (1986).

Upon review of appellant's claims, we find that he has shown no justiciable controversy; therefore, the denial of declaratory relief is affirmed.

Appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment using the enhancement provision found in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-121. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-121 provides that any person who is found guilty of or pleads guilty to a felony involving the use of a deadly weapon shall be sentenced to serve a minimum of ten years without parole but subject to reduction by meritorious good-time credit. According to appellant, his original ADC time computation card showed that he had a transfer eligibility date, otherwise known as parole eligibility date, of August 18, 2005 and a discharge date of June 20, 2010. However, he claims that the following year, his time computation card was changed to reflect a transfer eligibility date and discharge date of June 20, 2010. Appellant argues that the second time computation card is incorrect as it does not reflect the application of meritorious good time pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-121.

Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201, the statute governing the allowance of meritorious good time, provides that the accrual of good time does not reduce the length of a sentence, but does apply to an inmate's transfer eligibility date. In other words, the time shall be applied to decrease the time an inmate is required to be imprisoned before he becomes eligible for parole. Appellant was sentenced to ten years without parole. Because his sentence cannot be reduced and because he is ineligible for parole, there is no avenue for the application of good-time credit.

Appellant simply ignores the mandatory language in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-121 which provides that one shall be sentenced to serve a minimum of ten years without parole, and claims that he should only have to serve half of that sentence. Appellant claims support for this allegation in the phrase "but subject to reduction by meritorious good-time credit" found in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-121. According to appellant, there is a contradiction between Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-121 and Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201 regarding the applicability of good time.

In appellant's case, the application of meritorious good time would come into play if he had been sentenced to more than ten years. In that case, he would have been required to serve a minimum ten year sentence, with no eligibility of parole during that period of time. However, any good time could have been applied to his parole eligibility date after he had served the ten years.

Because the ADC has correctly computated appellant's sentence, we find no basis for declaratory relief on this point.

As for appellant's second point, he claims that he suffered prejudice because he did not pursue an appeal of his conviction, as he was "content" with serving what he thought would only be a five-year sentence. Appellant's assertion that he "believes" he would have prevailed on appeal is insufficient to show prejudice. We find no justiciable controversy that warrants relief and no showing of prejudice. As appellant has not met the conditions for declaratory relief, appellant's motion was properly denied.

Affirmed.