### NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2022 ca, 0506 DAMOND J. WASHINGTON

VERSUS 

### LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS DATE OFJUDGMENT: 

## NOV 0 7 2022 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA

NUMBER 708010, SECTION 24 HONORABLE DONALD R. JOHNSON, JUDGE

Damond J. Washington Winnsboro, Louisiana Plaintiff - Appellant Pro Se Jonathan R.Vinning Counsel for Defendant - Appellee Elizabeth B. Desselle 

### Louisiana Department ofPublic Safety Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Corrections

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND RESTER, JJ.

Disposition: AFFE MED.CHUTZ, I Plaintiff-appellant, Damond J. Washington, 

### a prisoner in the custody of defendant, 

### Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ( DPSC), 

### appeals the district court'sjudgment, dismissing his petition forjudicial review of 

### his request for administrative remedy procedure ( ARP) that challenged the 

### calculation ofhis release date. Forthe following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

### Washington was arrested on May 25, 2015. On October 24, 2016, 

### Washington pled guilty in Orleans Parish to four charges asserted against him. For each of counts 1 and 2, which were both charges of attempted second degree murder, Washington was sentenced to seventeen years and six months at hard labor.' 

### The criminal court expressly ordered the sentences for each ofcounts 1 and 2 were " concurrent with these counts: any and all counts." Also noted for each of counts 1 and 2 was the designation, " A crime of violence is included in the charges." For each of counts 3 and 4, which were charges of possession of a 

### firearm or weapon by a felon, Washington was sentenced to twenty years at hard labor.' 

### The criminal court expressly ordered the sentences for each ofcounts 3 and 4 were " concurrent with these counts: any and all counts." Credit for time served 

### applied to all fourcounts to which Washington pled guilty. While serving the fourconcurrent sentences in DPSC' s custody, Washington initiated this ARP claim, averring that DPSC had misapplied the law in calculating the diminution ofthe sentences for good behavior and, thus, the date of his release 

### from DPSC' s custody was incorrect. As relief,Washington requested that DPSC

See La. R.S. 14:27 and 30. 1. See La. R.S, 14: 95. 1. 2

### recalculate his release date. DPSC concluded its calculations were correct and

denied the requested relief.' 

### Washington thereafter filed a petition forjudicial review ofthe ARP in the 

### Nineteenth Judicial District Court. DPSC answered, maintaining that the ARP 

### reliefwas correctly denied. The district court commissioner subsequently issued a report, recommending that DPSC' s decision be affirmed.' The district courtjudge agreed with the recommendations and signed a judgment, affirming DPSC' s 

### decision and dismissing Washington' s claims with prejudice. Washington appeals. DISCUSSION 

### La. R.S. 15: 1177(A)(9) sets forth the appropriate standard of review by the district court, 

### which functions as an appellate court when reviewing DPSC's administrative decisions. 

### Judicial review is mandated to be conducted by the district court without a jury and must be confined to the record. La. R.S. 15: 1177(A)(5). 

### Specifically, the court may reverse or modify the administrative decision only ifsubstantial rights ofthe appellant have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings are: ( 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, ( 2) 

### in excess ofthe statutory authority ofthe agency, ( 3) made upon
unlawful procedure, (

### 4) affected by other error of law, (5) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion, or ( 

### 6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. La. R.S. 15: 1177(A)(9); Wallace v. LeBlanc, 2017- 1551 ( 

### La. App. 1st Cir. 6/21/ 18), 255 So.3d 613, 615, writ denied, 2018- 1322 (La. 5/28/ 19), 273 So.3d 312.



### 3The record, whichwas certified by DPSC as "true and exact copies ofthe entire administrative proceedings" does not contain a first - step response. 4 The office of Commissioner of the 19th JDC was created by La. R.S. 13:711 to hear and recommend disposition ofcriminal and civil proceedings arising out ofthe incarceration ofstate prisoners. La. R.S. 13: 713(A). The Commissioner' s written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. See La. R.S. 13: 713( C)( 5); Wallace v. LeBlanc, 2017- 1551 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6121118), 255 So.3d 613, 615 n.4, writ denied, 2018- 1322 ( La. 5128119), 273 So.3d 312. 3On review of the district court' s judgment under La. R.S. 15: 1177, no



## deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal 

## conclusions ofthe district court,just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. Wallace, 255 So.3d at 616. 

## Washington assertsthatthewrongversion ofLa.R.S. 15:571.3, setting forth the guidelines fordiminution ofsentences forgoodtime, was applied by DPSC in calculating his date of release. Washington points out that the crime ofpossession ofa firearm or weapon by a felon is not a crime ofviolence. He then reasons that 

### because the sentences of the longest duration that he received were the two sentences oftwenty years for his violations ofthe crime ofpossession ofa firearm 

### or weapon by a felon, the version of La. R.S. 

### 15: 571.3 as amended by La. Acts 2017, No. 280, § 3, effective November 1, 2017 (Act 280), applies to all four ofthe concurrent sentences imposed against him. 

### Good time credits are determined by the law in effect at the time of the commission ofthe offense. Wallace, 255 So.3d at 617 (citing Massey v. Louisiana Dept ofPub. Safety & Corr., 2013-2789 ( La. 10115114), 149 So.3d 780, 783- 86). 

### Since Act 280 had not taken effect on May 25, 2015, the date of Washington' s offense for which he was arrest, its provisions are inapplicable to the calculation of 

### his release date. Thus, DPSC correctly denied Washington's requested ARP relief,' and the district court correctly dismissed his petition for judicial review with prejudice.

5 See La. Acts 1995, No. 1099, effective January 1, 1997, which amended La. R.S. 15:571.3 to state, " The amount of diminution of sentence allowed under the provisions ofthis Section shall be at the rate ofthirty days for every thirty days in actual custody except foran inmate convicted a first time ofa crime ofviolence ... who shall earn diminution ofsentence at a rate ofthree days for every seventeen days in actual custody." 4DECREE



### The district court judgment, dismissing Washington's petition forjudicial review of DPSC's denial of the request for recalculation of his release date is
affirmed. Appeal costs are assessed against plaintiff- appellant, Damond J. Washington. AFFIRMED.

W-