JOHN ALLEN v. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: NOVEMBER 8, 2002; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2002-CA-001499-MR
JOHN ALLEN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM LEE CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE WILLIAM W. TRUDE, JR., JUDGE
ACTION NO. 02-CI-00019
v.
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: BARBER, COMBS, AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
John Allen brings this pro se appeal from a May
30, 2002 order of the Lee Circuit Court denying him declaratory
relief under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 418.040 and Ky. R.
Civ. P. 57.
We affirm.
Appellee has not filed a brief in this matter, and
appellant’s brief is lacking in some respects.
nevertheless, to ferret out the facts.
We shall attempt,
Allen was sentenced by
the Campbell Circuit Court in 1989 to a term of fifteen years’
imprisonment.
Apparently, at the time of sentencing, the court
recognized that Allen may need some type of drug treatment.
In 1993, Allen was paroled and returned to the State of
Missouri to finish a sentence there.
He was later released from
Missouri and returned to this state on parole.
In 1996, his
parole was revoked.
A condition of Allen’s parole was that he receive
treatment in a drug treatment facility.
Apparently, the Parole
Board imposed the condition, following the thinking of the
circuit court.
It appears that Allen, upon separate occasions, spent a
total of 209 days confined in half-way houses undergoing drug
treatment.
He claims that because his liberty was restricted
during these confinements he should be given credit against his
fifteen year prison sentence.
He perceives his confinement in
the treatment facilities as being pursuant to court order.
We view the question before us as whether the circuit
court erred in failing to credit Allen for time spent in the drug
treatment facilities.
We think not.
It is fundamental that time spent on parole cannot be
credited against a prisoner’s sentence.
KRS 439.344.
It is
further without question that parole is a matter of grace and
within the prerogative of the Parole Board, and that the Board
may place reasonable conditions upon the granting of a parole.
See Willard v. Ferguson, Ky., 358 S.W.2d 516 (1962).
Upon review of the record as a whole, we view the
circuit court’s reference to drug treatment as merely a
recommendation.
The conditioning of parole upon drug treatment
is within the jurisdiction of the Parole Board.
-2-
The Campbell
Circuit Court simply sentenced Allen to prison, and the Parole
Board thereafter incorporated the circuit court’s recommendation
as a condition of parole.
In any event, we are convinced that
both the circuit court and the Parole Board acted appropriately.
In sum, we perceive no merit in the appellant’s
contention that he is entitled to credit for the period of time
spent in drug treatment facilities.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Lee Circuit
Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
NO BRIEF FILED FOR APPELLEE.
John Allen, Pro Se
Beattyville, Kentucky
-3-
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.
