IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAWA 

EARL TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

HENRY RISLEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 84-104 

-. 

ORDER AND OPINION 

CLEHil OF SrJPr:LkfPI, COiJRT 

STATE OF hididi','t?;A 

PER CURIAM: 

The State has filed herein a motion for clarification 

and declaratory relief regarding this Court's order of May 

31, 1984 denying petitioner Earl Taylor's application for a 

writ of habeas corpus. The State seeks prospective 

a-pplication only of that part of the order which purportedly 

establishes a new rule for computation of parole eli.gibility 

for offenders serving consecutive sentences. 

The petitioner has filed a response, also seeking 

clarification and declaratory relief, but contending the 

order is erroneous and should. have no application, 

retroactive or prospective. 

This Court has examined the motion and the response, as 

well as the order of May 31, 1984. 

The petitioner was sentenced in the Cascade County 

District Court to twenty years for the crime of robbery, and 

five years for the crime of second degree assault, to be 

served. consecutively. In 1975, petitioner pled guilty to the 

crime of escape and received an additional three year 
sentence, to he served corisecutively to the previous 

sentences. 

In 1977, the petitioner was paroled on all three 

offenses. While on parole, he was convicted of burglary and 

theft in the State of Missouri and after serving prison time 

there, was returned to the Montana State Prison in December 

1981. At that time, the petitioner's parole was revoked and 

324 days of good time allowances earned by him while on 

parole were likewise revoked. 

In the order and opinion of May 31, 1.984 denying 

petitioner's applica.tion for a writ of habeas corpus, this 

Court stated: 

"The action -- of the Board of Pardons purporting to 

release + ~etitioner -I-- on ~arole from all three 

consecutive sentences --- was and is illegal.. All the 

time served, whether in prison or on parole, 

applies only against the twenty-year sentence for 

robbery, and petitioner has never begun serving his 

sentence for second degree assault or escape." 

The underscored language of the order, beginning "The action 

of the Board . . .", and concluding ". . . was and is 

illegal.", is an incorrect statement of the law. The action 

of the Board of Pardons in pa.roling the petitioner on al.1 

three offenses was correct under the long-standing rule of 

State ex.re1. Herman and Roy v. Powell (1961), 159 Mont 5831, 

"Nowhere in the Act is it suggested that an inmate 

confined with multiple sentences, whether 

concurrent or consecutive, is ineligible for 

parole. On the contrary, section 94-9333 (now 

section 46-23-201, MCA), clearly indicates that 

such an inmate is eligible for parole: 

"A prisoner having served one-fourth (1/4) of his 

term or terms, less good time allowances, shall 

upon parole, be deemed as released on parole until 

the expiration of the maximum term or terms for 

which he was sentenced less good time allowances as 

provided in section 80-740. (Emphasis added.) 
"The Board could, in order to avoid any ambiguity 

or confusion in the case of consecutive sentences, 

issue one parole to cover the maximum period of 

confinement. The result, of course, would be the 

same. That is, the prisoner would be required to 

serve a period equivalent to one-fourth of the 

combined total of each sentence (less good time) 

before he would be eligible for parole. And, the 

fact that rel-ators' subsequent sentences are escape 

sentences in no way affects this result." 

The order of this Court on May 31, 1984 was not intended to 

change this rule of computing parole eligiblity for offenders 

serving consecutive sentences. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The language on page 2 of this Court's May 31, 

1984 order, "The action of the Board of Pardons purporting to 

release petitioner on parole from al.1 three consecutive 

sentences was and is illegal," is hereby ordered stricken. 

The remainder of that order remains intact. 

2. The parole eligibility of offenders serving 

consecutive sentences shall continue to be computed under the 

rule of Herman, supra. 

3. The Clerk is directed to mail a true copy hereof to 

petitioner personally, to the Attorney General and to the 

County Attorney of Cascade County, Montana. 

dD A & 

DATED this 2- - day of &, 1984 

/ '4.- " &,~9 hd 

Acting Chief Justice 
Justices