From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Black v. LeBlanc

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
Sep 16, 2016
2016 CA 0116 (La. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2016)

Opinion

2016 CA 0116

09-16-2016

HAROLD JOE BLACK #111111 v. JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.

Harold Joe Black #111111 Plain Dealing, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant Pro-Se Susan Wall Griffin Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections


NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

APPEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER C606845, SECTION 24 HONORABLE R. MICHAEL CALDWELL, JUDGE Harold Joe Black #111111
Plain Dealing, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant
Pro-Se Susan Wall Griffin
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND DRAKE, JJ. McDONALD, J.

In this case, the plaintiff-appellant, Harold Joe Black, is a former inmate of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC). While still in the custody of DPSC, Mr. Black filed ARP No. DWCC-2011-0459, seeking credit for all of his time spent on probation (street time) prior to the revocation of his probation in 2009.

Prior to Acts 2010, No. 792, § 1, La. R.S. 15:571.5 and La. R.S. 15:574.9 did not authorize credit for time served for good behavior while on parole. By Acts 2010, No. 792, §1, effective August 15, 2010, the Legislature changed the law to allow credit for time served for good behavior while on parole. Mr. Black seeks retroactive application of that statute to his time spent on probation.

DPSC denied Mr. Black's request for credit for time spent on probation. Mr. Black filed suit seeking judicial review of that decision. After a review, the Commissioner found that Acts 2010, No. 792, § 1 did not apply to probation, did not apply retroactively, and further, that Mr. Black's request for credit was moot, as he had already been released from DPSC custody. The Commissioner recommended that the suit be dismissed without prejudice. The district court thereafter dismissed the suit without prejudice. Mr. Black has appealed that judgment.

This court, in Rochelle v. LeBlanc, 2010-1901 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/6/11), 65 So.3d 240, 243, determined that Louisiana Acts 2010, No. 792, § 1 was clearly substantive and thus could not be applied retroactively. Moreover, Acts 2010, No. 792, § 1 applies to parole, not probation.

Therefore, we find no legal error by the district court in dismissing the suit without prejudice. The district court judgment is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-appellant, Harold Joe Black.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Black v. LeBlanc

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
Sep 16, 2016
2016 CA 0116 (La. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2016)
Case details for

Black v. LeBlanc

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD JOE BLACK #111111 v. JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL.

Court:STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 16, 2016

Citations

2016 CA 0116 (La. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2016)