Gary P. Jamerson VS Louisiana Department of Corrections, Secretary James Leblanc and Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 2238 GARY P JAMERSON VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SECRETARY JAMES LeBLANC BURL CAIN WARDEN LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY Judgment Rendered MAY 7 2010 f On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 562 984 Honorable Janice Clark Judge Presiding Gary Jamerson Louisiana State Prison Plaintiff Appellant In Proper Person Angola Louisiana Terri L Cannon Counsel for DefendantAppellee Baton Rouge Louisiana Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections GAIDRY AND MCCLENDON JJ 7G MCCLENDON Plaintiff appellant Gary P Jamerson an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections DPSC appeals the district court judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review regarding good time credit In his petition plaintiff alleges that after he committed the offense of forcible rape in 1996 LSA R 15 was amended to require that S 571 313 inmates convicted of a crime of violence earn good time at the rate of three days credit for every seventeen days served He contends that the effective date of the amendment was January 1 1997 so he should therefore receive thirty days good time credit for every thirty days served On August 19 2009 the Commissioner issued a report and recommended that plaintiff petition for judicial review be dismissed with prejudice s The Commissioner determined that the reduction in the rate of good time only affects s plaintiff opportunity for early release from physical custody and does not alter the length of the term imposed by the sentencing court or his full term release Therefore it does not fall within the purview of the constitutional date prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto laws See California Dept of Corrections v Morales 514 U 499 506 115 S 1597 1602 131 S Ct 2d Ed L 588 1995 State ex rel Olivieri v State 00 0172 p 13 La 01 21 2 779 So 735 743 cert denied 533 U 936 121 S 2566 150 2d S Ct 2d Ed L 730 2001 and 534 U 892 122 S 208 151 L 148 2001 S Ct 2d Ed The Commissioner concluded that plaintiff failed to show that an ex post facto application of law occurred in this matter or that DPSC is precluded from awarding good time at a rate of three days credit for every seventeen days served Following a de novo review the district court adopted the sreport as its reasons in its September 16 2009 judgment and Commissioner dismissed plaintiff request for judicial review with prejudice and at his costs s Finding that the Commissioner report and the district court judgment s s adequately explain our decision we affirm the judgment of the district court through this summary disposition in accordance with Rules 216 4 5 2 2A 2 and 6 of the Uniform Rules of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff appellant Gary P Jamerson AFFIRMED 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.
