Opinion
3 Div. 892.
March 2, 1948.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Eugene W. Carter, Judge.
Petition of Clarence Hall for habeas corpus, to effect his release from the penitentiary on the ground that he has completed the sentence imposed upon him. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Rains Rains, of Gadsden, for appellant.
The parole board has the same authority over prisoners serving under indeterminate sentences as it has over prisoners whose convictions and sentences occurred subsequent to the effectiveness of the Act. The director of the department of corrections and institutions has the same authority. Summers v. State, 31 Ala. App. 264, 15 So.2d 500; Code 1940, Tit. 45, § 253. It is the duty of the director to release a prisoner, when the records indicate he is eligible; and if the date of release under short term law is reached while the prisoner is out on parol, and after that date his parole is revoked by the board of paroles, the director is under duty to disregard the act of the parole board and release the prisoner under authority granted him by law.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. T. Hardin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The provisions of § 253, Title 45, of the Code, for deductions from sentence for good behavior, are inapplicable to this case, but apply only to persons who have been confined for a definite term other than for life. Petitioner's sentence was not confinement for a definite term, but for a minimum of 8, and a maximum of 10 years, under the terms of the statute as it existed at the time of his conviction. Code 1923, §§ 5267-5276. Under such statutes a prisoner is not entitled as matter of right to parole upon expiration of the minimum term, but rather becomes eligible for consideration for parole by the paroling agency. Ex parte Tischler, 127 Ohio St. 404, 188 N.E. 730; Oliver v. State, 169 Tenn. 320, 87 S.W.2d 566; Com. ex rel. Carmelo v. Smith, 347 Pa. 495, 32 A.2d 913. But should it be held that those deductions granted prisoners for good behavior are applicable to indeterminate sentences, appellant by his record of conduct while an inmate deprived himself of such benefits. Code, Tit. 45, § 253.
On February 22, 1939, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment in the State penitentiary for a minimum term of eight years and a maximum term of ten years. Sec. 5268, Code 1923.
On January 5, 1948, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, claiming in substance that he was wrongfully held in Kilby Prison for the reason that he had completed his imposed sentence. The writ was denied, and this appeal followed.
By an act approved August 24, 1939, the Legislature repealed all provisions of law authorizing judges of courts exercising criminal jurisdiction to pronounce upon defendants indeterminate sentences of imprisonment in the penitentiary. Act No. 279, Regular and Special Session 1939, p. 438.
This repealing act specifically provides in Section 2 thereof: "That this act shall not be operative upon offenses committed prior to the effective date hereof."
In the case at bar the record discloses that on May 20, 1939, the prisoner was demoted to "Class C" for refusing to work and enticing fellow inmates to strike, and that as punishment for said offense he was made to serve fourteen days in solitary confinement; that petitioner was released on parole pending good behavior on March 23, 1943, and was declared delinquent and returned to imprisonment in July, 1947. It is also shown by the evidence that, on August 22, 1947, the Board of Pardons and Paroles revoked the parole of the petitioner and ordered him "to Kilby to finish his sentence."
The reasonable interpretation of the law with which we are called upon to deal leads us to the conclusion that the "maximum sentence" of ten years in this case was the period of time the petitioner was required to serve unless released by duly constituted authorities.
This construction of the law is in accord with that of other jurisdictions in which indeterminate sentences are provided. Oliver et al. v. State, 169 Tenn. 320, 87 S.W.2d 566; Commonwealth ex rel. Carmelo v. Smith, etc., 347 Pa. 495, 32 A.2d 913; Ex parte Tischler, 127 Ohio St. 404, 188 N.E. 730.
The petitioner in this case has not served his maximum sentence of ten years. He, therefore, is not illegally held.
The judgment of the court below is ordered affirmed.
Affirmed.