Victor Jones VS Secretary of Corrections James Leblanc, Warden Lynn Cooper and Tonia Rachal
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 1837 VICTOR JONES VERSUS SECRETARY OF CORR JAMES LEBLANC WARDEN LYNN COOPER MS TONIA RACHAL Judgment Rendered May 6 2011 r z On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 577 998 Honorable William Morvant Judge Presiding Victor Jones Plaintiff Appellant Cottonport LA In Proper Person Debra A Rutledge Baton Rouge LA Attorney for DefendantAppellee James M LeBlanc Secretary of Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ HIGGINBOTHAM J Victor Jones an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections the Department filed a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court of a final agency decision rendered under the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act Jones challenged the Department award of credit for time served prior to s the imposition of sentence on his four consecutive sentences Thereafter the Department issued an amended final agency decision awarding credit for time served on all four sentences but only awarding goodtime credit on s Jones first sentence Following a hearing on January 7 2010 the parties were allowed to submit post hearing briefs on the issue of whether the Department was required to award goodtime credit on all four sentences for time served prior to the imposition of sentence After conducting de novo review the district court adopted the s Commissioner Report as its reasons in its June 21 2010 judgment affirming the Department amended final agency decision and dismissing s s Jones suit with prejudice and at the Department cost Jones appeals the s district court judgment maintaining he is entitled to jail credit on all four s sentences as ordered by the sentencing judge The Department relies on the provisions of LSAR 15 restricting the Department authority S 571 3 3B s to award an inmate serving consecutive sentences more than thirty days goodtime credit for any calendar month served in actual custody awaiting sentence 1 I 1 to Louisiana Revised Statute 15 was amended by Acts 2008 No 30 3 3B 571 substitute thirtyfive for thirty days however the former version of the statute is applicable in this case 1 We find that the Commissioner Report adopted by the district court s as its reasons thoroughly and adequately discusses the factual and procedural background of this case and provides an excellent analysis of the applicable law After an extensive review of the entire record we also adopt the Commissioner Report as our reasons and attach a copy of same to our s report as Exhibit A We agree with the district court judgment s upholding the Department decision and dismissing Jones suit s s The statutory guidelines found in LSAR 15 mandate the award of S 571 3 3B thirty days goodtime credit per calendar month on only one of Jones s sentences and the award of no goodtime credits on the portion of Jones s three remaining sentence consecutive sentences served prior to imposition of Therefore it is clear that Jones has received all relief available Accordingly we affirm the district court judgment by summary s opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 2 4 2A 16 5 6 and 7 All costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff appellant Victor Jones AFFIRMED K3 EXHIBIT A VICTOR JONES NO 577 998 SECTION 23 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VS PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA SECRETARY JAMES LEBLANC ET AL POSTE JUN 2 4 2010 S COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDATION The petitioner filed the instant request for relief pursuant to R 15 S 1177 seeking judicial review of the final agency decision rendered under Administrative Remedy Procedure No AVC200982 wherein the petitioner seeks credit for time served on consecutive sentences The petitioner contends his trial court specifically granted credit for time served on his four consecutive sentences imposed under East Baton Rouge Docket No 996555 Initially the iw Department issued an administrative response that denied credit for time served on his consecutive sentences In support of his request for judicial review the petitioner attached a copy of his sentencing transcript wherein the sentencing court specified the petitioner was to receive credit for time served from arrest to bond and from remand through the imposition of sentence on each of his four terms Subsequent to service of this matter the Department issued an amended final agency decision where the petitioner was given 437 days of awarded credit on his remaining three sentences The amended response from the Department was accepted into the record over the objection of the petitioner At the oral argument conducted by this Commissioner the petitioner argued that although he had received jail credits on each of his four sentences he only received good time credits on his jail credits relative to his first sentence The Department argued that the credit for time served on the petitioner first s sentence was considered by the Department as credit for time served However the jail credits for the remaining three sentences were considered RECD C JUN 29 11R11 100 19 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 0 0 awarded credit and the Department contends the petitioner is not entitled to good time on awarded jail credits The parties were allowed to submit post hearing briefs to address the issue of whether the Department is required to award good time on all of the petitioner four sentences for time served prior to s the imposition of sentence The briefs filed by both parties have been received and considered by this Court In the petitioner brief he contends he was arrested on all four charges on s the some day and was sentenced on all four charges on the some day The petitioner points out that the sentencing court specified the petitioner was to receive jail credits on all his sentences and the Department should be required to consider the time served prior to sentencing on his four sentences as jail credits rather than awarded credits The petitioner also contends that subsequent to the date he was sentenced C Art 880 was amended to P Cr add language providing no inmate shall receive more than 30 days jail credit for any calendar month while serving consecutive sentences and that ex post facto prohibitions prohibit the application of that particular change in the law to his sentence The Department argues in the post hearing brief filed in this matter that S 571 R 15 restricts the Department authority to award more than 30 days 6 3 s good time credit for any 30 calender days served prior to sentencing The Department also contends that the decision cited by the petitioner Williams vs Cooper 954 So 2d 48 La App 1 Cir 2006 did not address the issue of whether the Department must award good time on consecutive sentences for time served prior to sentencing Initially this Commissioner recognizes there is a substantial distinction between jail credits for time served prior to sentencing and the award of good time on jail credits It is clear that in this matter the trial court had the authority to allow the petitioner to receive jail credits on each of his four sentences It is well recognized that a determination regarding what sentence an inmate is to Z 1 ath m Inlr n1ATRJrT rnl 1RT W 2 receive is within the authority of the trial court and the trial court sentencing s authority in this matter encompassed any award of credit for time served prior Ito the imposition of sentence This Commissioner also notes that C Cr P art 880 concerns jail credits rather than good time credits The Department has acknowledged that the petitioner is entitled to jail credits on all 4 of his sentences and the only issue to be determined by this Court is whether the petitioner may earn good time on his jail credits relative to his three consecutive sentences This Commissioner notes the Legislature has provided that the Department of Corrections may determine when good time is earned and credited toward an inmate sentence State v Narcisse 714 So 2d 698 La App 1 Cir 1998 s The statutory provisions of R 15 through 15 provide authority and a S 571 1 14 541 framework for the Department to award good time While the sentencing court determines whether credit for time served is allowed on a particular sentence it is the Department that determines when an inmate is entitled to receive good time credit on the sentence imposed by a trial court R 15 B provides S 571 3 the Secretary of the Department of Corrections is authorized to establish regulations regarding the awarding and recording of good time earned by inmates in the custody of the Department and is authorized to determine when good time has been earned Under the provisions of R 15 a S 571 B 3 sentencing court is only authorized to deny or condition good time eligibility for sex offenders under the provisions of R 15 The petitioner was not S 537 convicted of a sex offense It must also be noted that R 15 provides S 571 6 3 that the Department is to award good time for time served in actual custody with the exception that no inmate shall receive more than 30 days good time for any calendar month while serving a term of consecutive sentences The Legislature has specified that no inmate with consecutive sentences shall receive more than 30 days good time credit for any calendar month served in actual custody awaiting sentence The Department is not allowed to award 9 3 1 0 0 good time credit for time served prior to imposition of the petitioner four s consecutive sentences in excess of 30 days good time credit for every thirty days served This results in the award of thirty days good time credit per calendar month on only one of the petitioner sentences and the award of no s good time credits on the portion of the petitioner three remaining sentences s served prior to imposition of sentence While the trial court has authority to provide the petitioner receive jail credits on all four of his consecutive terms the decision of the trial court to allow for jail credits on all four consecutive terms does not require that the Department award good time on all four consecutive terms Good time credits are awarded by the Department within the statutory guidelines provided by the Legislature The provisions of R 15 prohibit S 571 B 3 the Department from awarding good time on any portion of a consecutive sentence served prior to imposition of sentence and the Department has adopted a valid regulation in accord with the restrictions of R 15 It is S 571 B 3 the finding of this Commissioner that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any additional good time credits in this matter and this Commissioner finds that the petitioner has received all relief available Accordingly it is the recommendation of this Commissioner that this matter be dismissed wilkprejudice based on the finding the petitioner has obtained all available relief and the defendants amended final agency decision should be affirmed on judicial review Due to the fact that relief was not provided until after this matter was filed the defendants should pay all costs in this matter a Y Respectfully recommended this day of p FILED e MAY Z 1 2010 SMART IR DYy 4 CILERK OF COURT JOHN ISSIONER SECTION B COM 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT W LLJ C I 3 C LW Q 70 10th m inlr nISTRIr T C M fl11RT
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.
