Case Title: State v. Meadows

Citation: 393 S.W.2d 744

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1965-09-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
393 S.W.2d 744 (1965) STATE of Tennessee ex rel. A.R. IVEY, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. J.E. MEADOWS, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Defendant-in-Error. Supreme Court of Tennessee. September 10, 1965. Henry, McCord, Forrester & Richardson, Doyle E. Richardson, Tullahoma, for plaintiff in error. *745 George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for defendant in error. CHATTIN, Justice. This is a habeas corpus proceeding. The plaintiff-in-error, A.R. Ivey, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to confinement in the State Penitentiary for a period of ninety-nine years. Pending an appeal of the conviction, he was confined for a period of eighteen months and eighteen days in the State Penitentiary. This Court reversed the first conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. Ivey v. State, 210 Tenn. 422, 360 S.W.2d 1 (1962). In December 1962, petitioner was again tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of not more than five years. He commenced serving that sentence on January 3, 1963. Counsel for petitioner seasonably moved the trial judge, after the second conviction, to allow the petitioner credit on his sentence for time he was confined in jail awaiting his first trial and also the time which he spent in the State Penitentiary pending the appeal of his first conviction. The trial judge overruled this motion and ordered his sentence to commence as of January 3, 1963. On August 26, 1964, petitioner filed this petition in the Circuit Court of Davidson County in which he set forth the foregoing facts, together with the insistence he was, as a matter of law, entitled to be released from the penitentiary. Specifically, petitioner insisted in his petition for the writ of habeas corpus he had served nineteen months and thirteen days of his second sentence as of August 16, 1964; which, when added to the eighteen months and eighteen days he had spent in the penitentiary pending the appeal of his first conviction, totaled thirty-eight months; and that by reason of his total confinement in the penitentiary he had earned a total of twenty-two months credit for good behavior and honor time, which, when added to the thirty-eight months of confinement, would amount to five years, his maximum sentence. It is said in support of this insistence that credit for time served in the penitentiary and good conduct and honor time earned thereby, is now and was always mandatory; and thus petitioner has served his maximum sentence and his further restraint is unlawful. T.C.A. Section 41-332 provides: T.C.A. Section 41-334 provides the Commissioner of Institutions shall have the right and power to establish an honor grade in which convicts shall be placed when received at the penitentiary and so long as any prisoner who is placed on the honor grade remains in prison, he shall, in addition to good behavior time allowed him by T.C.A. Section 41-332, have deducted from the time for which he may have been sentenced two months for each year of his term of imprisonment or the fractional part thereof. It is further said for petitioner that as a matter of law he was entitled to credit for the eighteen months and eighteen days spent in the penitentiary pending the appeal of his first conviction and also credit for good behavior and honor time earned thereby; and, thus, the judgment of the trial court in disallowing his motion for these *746 credits on his sentence was void in that respect. The petition for the writ of habeas corpus was heard upon a stipulation of facts, certain exhibits filed to the petition, briefs and oral arguments of Counsel for the respective parties. The stipulation of facts contains the following paragraph: While it is true specific credits provided by statute for good conduct of a defendant sentenced to the penitentiary enter into the judgment, "and inheres into the punishment assessed;" Gilliam v. State, 174 Tenn. 388, 126 S.W.2d 305 (1939); Fite v. State ex rel. Snider, 114 Tenn. 646, 88 S.W. 941, 1 L.R.A.,N.S., 520 (1905); yet we think the matter of allowing credit for the time petitioner served in the penitentiary pending the appeal of his first conviction was discretionary with the trial court on his second conviction and this Court cannot review the action of the trial court in refusing petitioner credit on his second sentence, except on appeal or writ of error therefrom. T.C.A. Section 40-3102 was amended by the Acts of 1955 and 1959, and prior to the amendment by the Act of 1963, the amendments read, as follows: In construing the amendments of 1955 and 1959, this Court in the case of State ex rel. Crist v. Bomar, 211 Tenn. 420, 365 S.W.2d 295 (1963), said: In the case of Douglass v. State, supra, it was held, on an appeal and an affirmance of a conviction, this Court could grant a petition of the defendant filed in this Court credit for time served in jail pending trial and the appeal. On the other hand, this Court has held in numerous cases the writ of habeas corpus may not be employed as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error. State ex rel. Potter v. Bomar, 209 Tenn. 577, 354 S.W.2d 767 (1962); State ex rel. Holbrook v. Bomar, 211 Tenn. 243, 364 S.W.2d 887 (1963); State ex rel. Smith v. Bomar, 212 Tenn. 149, 368 S.W.2d 748 (1963). Thus, we are of the opinion the trial court was not in error in dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. T.C.A. Section 40-3101 provides: The record shows petitioner was in jail as of January 3, 1963, the date of final judgment of his second conviction. As of the date of the release of this opinion, September 10, 1965, petitioner will have served a total of thirty-two months of the five year term which commenced on January 3, 1963. Although he may be eligible for parole by virtue of having earned good behavior and honor time during that confinement, he is not entitled to an outright release sought here. The granting of a parole is a discretionary matter vested exclusively in the Board of Pardons and Paroles. T.C.A. Section 40-3614; Doyle v. Hampton, 207 Tenn. 399, 340 S.W.2d 891 (1960); State ex rel. Greene v. Rimmer, 131 Tenn. 316, 174 S.W. 1134 (1914); Graham v. State, 202 Tenn. 423, 304 S.W.2d 622 (1957). For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. BURNETT, C. J., and WHITE and DYER, JJ., concur. CRESON, J., not participating.