Opinion
2015 CA 0967
02-29-2016
DARREN WILLIAMS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
Darren Williams New Orleans, Louisiana Petitioner-Appellant In Proper Person Susan Wall Griffin Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUMBER 621832, SECTION 27, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE TODD HERNANDEZ, JUDGE Darren Williams
New Orleans, Louisiana Petitioner-Appellant
In Proper Person Susan Wall Griffin
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-Appellee
Louisiana Department of Public Safety
and Corrections BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Disposition: AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, J.
Darren Williams (petitioner), an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (Department), appeals a district court judgment dismissing his petition for judicial review, without prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2007, petitioner was arrested on a charge of simple burglary. He was convicted of that offense and sentenced to eight years at hard labor. On April 26, 2011, petitioner was released on good time parole, with 1544 days remaining on his full-term sentence. On May 18, 2011, petitioner was arrested on a new charge of theft and was booked into the Orleans Parish Prison under the name of Steven Williams. The Department issued a warrant for petitioner in June 2011, but due to petitioner's use of an alias upon booking, the Department was unaware of petitioner's continued incarceration in the Orleans Parish Prison. The Department issued a detainer for petitioner on May 17, 2012, when it learned of his presence in that facility. Petitioner's parole was revoked on May 23, 2012.
Petitioner subsequently was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Orleans Parish (Orleans Parish district court) on the theft charge and was sentenced in January 2013 to 30 months at hard labor, with credit for time served from the date of his arrest on that charge. The sentence was made concurrent to any other sentence petitioner was serving. The Orleans Parish district court further ordered that petitioner serve his sentence at Dixon Correctional Facility in order to receive proper medical care.
Petitioner filed a request for administrative relief (ARP), DWCC-2013-0069, complaining he did not receive all of the jail credit he was entitled to following the revocation of his parole on the simple burglary conviction. Specifically, petitioner contends he should have been given jail credit on his simple burglary sentence for the entire period of time he spent in the Orleans Parish Prison from the date of his arrest on the theft charge on May 18, 2011, until the revocation of his parole on May 23, 2013, particularly since the Orleans Parish district court made the sentence on the theft conviction concurrent with any other sentence petitioner was serving.
Petitioner was denied relief at both the first step and second step of the administrative remedy procedure. In its second-step response denying relief, the Department indicated that pursuant to La. R.S. 15:574.9(E), petitioner was entitled to jail credit for the entire time he spent in the Orleans Parish Prison on his new felony sentence only. Petitioner then filed a petition for judicial review in the 19th Judicial District Court, reiterating the contention that he is entitled to jail credit on his simple burglary sentence for the entire period of time he was jailed in Orleans Parish Prison.
After holding a hearing, the commissioner assigned to this matter issued an order staying the proceedings for 90 days and remanding this matter to the Department in its capacity as "Second Step Respondent." The Department was ordered to reconsider its ARP response in light of the order from the Orleans Parish district court sentencing petitioner to a 30-month concurrent sentence on his theft conviction, with credit for time served from the date of his arrest on May 18, 2011, and ordering that petitioner serve his sentence at Dixon Correctional Facility for the purpose of receiving medical treatment.
The office of commissioner of the 19th Judicial District Court was created by La. R.S. 13:711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. The commissioner's written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R.S. 13:713(C)(5); Harvey v. Stalder , 07-1595 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/2/08), 991 So.2d 54, 56 n.3.
After the Department filed an amended second-step response, the commissioner issued a report that focused not on petitioner's complaint regarding jail credit, but on petitioner's supplemental request that the Department transfer him to Dixon Correctional Facility for medical treatment. The commissioner concluded the district court could not grant petitioner any relief since he was released from the Department's physical custody on June 11, 2014, rendering this matter moot. After a de novo review of the record, the district court adopted the reasons assigned in the commissioner's report and dismissed petitioner's petition for judicial review, without prejudice, with petitioner to pay all costs. Petitioner has now appealed, reiterating his contention that he is entitled to additional jail credit on his simple burglary sentence. Petitioner has raised no issue on appeal regarding the denial of his transfer request.
In any event, we note that rather than being a matter for trial courts, decisions regarding the assignment of inmates to particular facilities falls with the scope of the Department's express authority. See La. R.S. 15:824(A).
DISCUSSION
Initially, we observe that as a court of record, we must render judgment based on the record before us on appeal. La. C.C.P. art. 2164. In this case, the appellate record contains no evidence establishing that petitioner was released from the physical custody of the Department in June 2014 as stated in the commissioner's report.
Nevertheless, our review of the record reveals the contentions raised in petitioner's petition for judicial review are devoid of merit. See La. R.S. 15:1177. In its amended second-step response, the Department pointed out that petitioner received credit on his theft sentence for the entire period of time he was in Orleans Parish Prison from the date of his arrest on that charge on May 18, 2011, until he was sentenced for that offense. Additionally, the Department gave a detailed account of how it calculated the jail credit petitioner was entitled to on his simple burglary sentence following the revocation of his parole. In particular, the Department gave petitioner 63 days of "street credit" on his simple burglary sentence for the period of time between his release on parole in April 2011 and the Department's issuance of a warrant for him in June 2011. Petitioner was also given 6 days jail credit for the period of time between the placement of the detainer on May 17, 2012, and the revocation of petitioner's parole on May 23, 2012. Petitioner was not given any jail credit for the period of time from the issuance of the Department's warrant in June 2011 until the placement of the detainer on May 17, 2012.
Although petitioner was in the Orleans Parish Prison continuously from the time of his arrest on the new theft charge on May 18, 2011, the Department did not place a parole violation detainer on him until May 17, 2012. Under La. R.S. 15:574.9(E), petitioner was not entitled to jail credit for time he spent in jail on a new felony charge that was not attributable to him being held in custody for a parole violation. Accordingly, the Department's calculation of petitioner's jail credit on his simple burglary sentence was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly erroneous. Petitioner received all of the jail credit to which he was entitled on that sentence. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 880; La. R.S. 15:574.9(E).
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court dismissing petitioner's petition, without prejudice, is affirmed. All cost of this appeal are to be paid by petitioner, Darren Williams.
Petitioner filed a motion with this court, captioned as a "Motion to Dismiss All Court Costs," in which he requested that the Department be assessed with all costs of these proceedings both in district court and this court. Petitioner's contentions in this matter being without merit, we hereby deny this motion. --------
AFFIRMED.