Opinion
No. 2010 CA 0053.
June 11, 2010.
APPEALED FROM THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA TRIAL COURT No. 573, 468 HONORABLE WILLIAM MORVANT, JUDGE.
KERRY WHITE, DEQUINCY, LA, IN PROPER PERSON PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
DEBRA A. RUTLEDGE, BATON ROUGE, LA, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JAMES M. LEBLANC.
BEFORE: CARTER, C.J., GUIDRY, AND PETTIGREW, JJ.
In this case, petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("DPSC"), sought review of Administrative Remedy Procedure No. PCC-2008-302, concerning what petitioner alleged were errors by DPSC in the calculation of his sentence, in extending his full-term date beyond what was originally imposed by the trial court, in failing to award credit for time spent on parole, and in failing to award one year and five months of additional jail credits for the time petitioner served in jail on both a new 1997 charge of sexual battery and on a parole violation sentence remaining from his 1984 rape conviction.
As noted by the Commissioner below, petitioner's claims regarding DPSC not having the authority to hold him past his original full-term date and his demand for credit for time out of prison on parole were not presented to DPSC in the administrative record and, thus, could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, these issues are not properly before this court and will not be considered herein. See La.R.S. 15:1177(A)(5); Canty v. Day, 99-0649, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/99), 756 So.2d 384, 386.
According to the record, petitioner was in jail on a parole violation detainer for his 1984 rape conviction at the same time he was in jail on the new felony arrest for sexual battery from March 1997 to August 1998, when he was sentenced on the sexual battery charge and his parole was automatically revoked on the rape conviction by virtue of La.R.S. 15:574.9(E). DPSC gave petitioner the days of presentence jail credit on the new felony (sexual battery) conviction in 1998, but denied his request to give him the same credits on his parole revocation sentence because of the prohibition in La.R.S. 15:574.9(E). After considering the record and applicable law, the Commissioner found that DPSC's denial of dual jail credits was not arbitrary or in violation of petitioner's rights. The Commissioner recommended that DPSC's decision to deny additional jail credits on the parole revocation sentence was required by La.R.S. 15:574.9(E) and should be affirmed.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 15:574.9(E) provides as follows:
E. When the parole of a parolee has been revoked by the board for the violation of the conditions of parole, the parolee shall be returned to the physical custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, office of corrections services, and serve the remainder of his sentence as of the date of his release on parole, subject to consideration by the board of any commutation of the sentence, and any diminution of sentence earned for good behavior while in the institution. The parolee shall be given credit for time served prior to the revocation hearing whether such time is served in a local detention facility, state institution, or out-of-state institution. The parolee shall not receive credit for such time served prior to the revocation hearing where the revocation is based on the subsequent conviction of a crime, in which case the parolee will receive credit for time served for the subsequent conviction pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Article 880.
Following a de novo review of the record herein, including the traversal by petitioner and the Commissioner's Report, the trial court maintained the decision by DPSC, dismissing petitioner's suit with prejudice. This appeal followed. After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment in accordance with Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2A(5), (6), (7), and (8). All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against petitioner, Kerry M. White.