Anthony Cupit VS Warden Howard Prince, Head Warden; Carla Maxwell, Records Department and James Leblanc, Secretary of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DES FOR PUBLICATION D GNAT EF aUISIANA STA T UF C OF P PPEAL FIRST CIR LIIT NUIVIBER 2411 C 2372 A ANTHONY CUP T VERSUS WARDEN HOWARD PRII HEAD WARDEN TCE CARLA MAZWELL RECORDS DEPARTMENT AND JAMES LEBLANC SECRETARY OF S RRECTIOl C JudgrrAent Rendered SEP 2 4 1012 Appealed f the rm r 19 Judicial Distxict ourt In and for the Parish of East BatQx R Louisiana ouge ial T ou Number 599 125 ble Honor dd Herna Judge dez Anthony Cupit St Gabriel LA Plaintiff William L Kline Attorney for Baton efendants Appellees I Rouge In LA Proper Person Appellant James M LeBlanc Secretary tof partmen D Public Safety Corrections BEFORE PARRO HUGH7ES AND WELCH JJ I WELCH J Anthony Cupit an inmate in th custody of tihe Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Correctians the Department confined to the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center in St Gabriel Louisiana appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing his petitian for judicial r of Administrative Remedy view Procedure No E O 10 2010 C H arid ffira the Department ning sfinal decision in the matter In 1983 Cupit was convicted of manslaughter and anmed robbery he was subsequently sentenced to serve consecutive prison terms of twenty years and one fifteen years respectively for those crimes n 1986 while serving his first sentence for manslaughter he was convicted of simple escape and sentenced to years two in prison which was to be served consecutively with his previous sentences On March 12 2003 Cupit was released on good time parole supervision but on October 28 2009 Cupit was returned to the physical custody of the Department because his good time parole supervision had been revoked On February 9 2011 Cupit filed a request for judicial review of the denial of administrative relief claiming that the IDepar had unlawfully taken good rnent time from him and xtended his incaree atio Essentially he contended that he had campleted the twenty year nr sentence az the two escape one slaughter ar d year sentence but that the Department failed to properly calculate his sentences and to recognize that h had completed the two s sentenc at issue In denying administrative relief the Department cantended that Cupit was required to reach a good time release date on all three of his consecutive terms before he could be released on good time parole supervision Thus when Cupit reached his good time release date on his first sentence he could not be released from physical custody due to his two remaining cansecutive terms The Department furthe contended that in order or Cupit to receive the benefit of earning good time Cupit second s 2 sentence began on the date he reached his good time release date on his first sentence and when Cupit reached his good time release on his s sentence his cond third sentence began to run Cupit claimed that the Department did not have the authority to stop the running of his twenty year manslaughter sentence when he reached his good one time release date on that particular sentence and began serving the fifteen year consecutive armed robbery sentence and since he remained in physical custody on both charges he should have continued to receive credit on his twenty year one manslaughter sentence for the entire time he was held in physical custody On August 16 201 l the commissioner assigned to the matter issued a report to the district court recommending that the Department sdecision be affirmed and that Cupit petition be dismissed The commissioner noted in his report that Cupit s was essentially claiming that he should rec credit on two sentences at the same ive time but due to the fact that Cupit was serving consecutive terms he could not receive credit on more than one sentence at a time In other words he could not continue to receive credit on his twenty year manslaughter sentence at the one same time he was receiving credit on his fifteen year armed robbery sentence The commissioner further noted that the Department had calculated Cupit sentence s utilizing a method that recognized that his sentences must be served in a consecutive manner and that also gave Cupit the benefit of earned good time credits Thus the commissioner determined that Cupit had failed to establish that the Department improperly calculated the balance remaining on his s or ntence that the Department final decision should be disturbed on judicial review s After considering the entire record of the proceedings on September 7 2011 the district court adopted the commassioner srecommendation and rendered judgment affirming the Department decision and dismissing Cupit petition for s s judicial review After a thorough review of the record o these proceedings we 3 find na error in the judgment of the district court nd affirm the district court s nt judgm in accordance 5 A 2 16 6 7 and with Uniforrr 8 Courts les R o Appeal Rule 2 All co o this appeal are assessed to the ts appellanx plaintiff Anthony Cu it AFFITtMED 4
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.
