From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cazalas v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Apr 9, 1963
152 So. 2d 444 (Ala. Crim. App. 1963)

Opinion

3 Div. 139.

April 9, 1963.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Montgomery County, Eugene W. Carter, J.

Paul D. Cazalas, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


Appeal from denial of habeas corpus wherein Cazalas claimed "good time" allowances entitled him to discharge from Kilby Prison. Code 1940, T. 45, § 253 et seq., as amended.

The uncontroverted return of the warden showed:

(1) May 17, 1956, judgment on defendant's plea of guilty — grand larceny and receiving — sentence of one year and one day.

(2) undated judgment on defendant's plea of guilty — possession of narcotics — sentence five years to begin running after end of time under (1) above;

(3) May 17, 1956, judgment on defendant's plea of guilty — grand larceny and receiving — sentence one year and one day to begin after that in (2) above;

(4) May 17, 1956, judgment on defendant's plea of guilty — grand larceny and receiving — sentence one year and one day to begin after end of that in (3) above;

all of the Mobile Circuit Court. The sentences total eight years and three days beginning sometime after May 17, 1956.

Since the good time law involves administrative questions, computations under it cannot, unless admitted to be correct in the warden's return, be used (nor reviewed in the first instance) in habeas corpus. Rockholt v. State, 41 Ala. App. 337, 132 So.2d 269.

The judgment remanding Cazalas is hereby

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Cazalas v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Apr 9, 1963
152 So. 2d 444 (Ala. Crim. App. 1963)
Case details for

Cazalas v. State

Case Details

Full title:Paul D. CAZALAS v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Apr 9, 1963

Citations

152 So. 2d 444 (Ala. Crim. App. 1963)
152 So. 2d 444

Citing Cases

Williams v. Davis

II. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Respondents contend that "good time" is an administrative question…

State v. Jenkins

As "good time" involves administrative questions, computations under it cannot, unless admitted to be correct…