Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/942/820/282539/
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 19:20:43
Document Index: 626621739

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 1253', '§ 1253']

Robert Chestnut, Petitioner, v. Martin Magnusson, Respondent, Appellee, 942 F.2d 820 (1st Cir. 1991) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 1991 › Robert Chestnut, Petitioner, v. Martin Magnusson, Respondent, Appellee
Robert Chestnut, Petitioner, v. Martin Magnusson, Respondent, Appellee, 942 F.2d 820 (1st Cir. 1991)
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 942 F.2d 820 (1st Cir. 1991) Submitted May 21, 1991. Decided Aug. 29, 1991
In McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 93 S. Ct. 1055, 35 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1973), the Supreme Court addressed a rather similar challenge to New York's statutory scheme concerning the award of good-time credits. Under New York law, inmates had a minimum parole date, the earliest time he or she could be released in the Parole Board's discretion, and a statutory release date, the day on which the inmate had to be released. New York law allowed inmates day-for-day credit for the time spent in pretrial detention, but did not allow, in calculating the minimum parole date, any further reduction of such time by the offset of good-time credit. However, in determining the statutory release date, good-time credit for time spent in a county jail awaiting trial was taken into consideration. Also, those not convicted of felonies who were confined to county penitentiaries received good-time credit for pretrial detention.1
Id. at 269-70, 93 S. Ct. at 1059 (citations and footnote omitted).
The Court went on to point out that pretrial detainees were held in detention centers which did not offer rehabilitation services, while state prisons provided such services. Id. at 271, 93 S. Ct. at 1060. Because good-time credits were, in part, related to an inmate's performance of assigned duties, the prisons afforded state officials an opportunity to evaluate an inmate's rehabilitative efforts. The detention centers, on the other hand, could not provide the same opportunity. Id. at 271-73, 93 S. Ct. at 1060-61. Thus, the extension of good-time credits to sentenced prisoners only, was rationally related to New York's interest in rehabilitation. Id. at 271, 93 S. Ct. at 1060.
The Court noted that while prisoner discipline might be the "primary" focus of the New York good-time scheme, rehabilitation was also a purpose. Id. at 276, 93 S. Ct. at 1062-63. The Court commented: "[s]o long as the state purpose upholding a statutory class is legitimate and nonillusory, its lack of primacy is not disqualifying." Id.
Courts addressing claims similar to the present have commonly relied on the analysis in McGinnis. For example, in State v. Aqui, 104 N.M. 345, 721 P.2d 771, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 917, 107 S. Ct. 321, 93 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1986), the Supreme Court of New Mexico held that New Mexico's good time credit scheme did not violate equal protection. New Mexico's provisions were similar to those in the Maine Criminal Code. An inmate confined to a state penitentiary could receive ten days " 'meritorious good time per month based on good conduct ... provided that an inmate who disobeys an order to perform labor ... shall not receive meritorious good time....' " 721 P.2d at 774 (quoting N.M.S.A. § 33-2-34(A)). Those inmates in an " 'enterprise program' " could receive up to twenty days " 'industrial good time per month based on work conduct, performance and responsibilities' " while those in other programs or engaged in providing other services also could earn additional " 'meritorious good time.' " Id. (quoting §§ 33-8-14, 33-2-34(A)). Finally, " 'exceptionally meritorious service' " could result in a lump sum good time award. Id. (quoting § 33-2-34(B)).
The Tenth Circuit recently upheld the Aqui analysis in Lemieux v. Kerby, 931 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1991). There, a New Mexico state prisoner challenged the same good time credit statutory scheme described in Aqui. He claimed that its purpose was not rehabilitation but to maintain order in prisons by promoting good behavior. He argued that the statute itself distinguished between credit awarded for good behavior in § 33-2-34 and credit awarded for participation in work or educational programs in § 33-8-14.
We conclude that § 1253 passes constitutional muster. State legislation is "presumed to be valid." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985). The indigency that may lead to an inability to post bail does not suffice to create a class calling for strict scrutiny rather than a rational relationship analysis. Thus the good-time distinctions in § 1253 between detainees and sentenced inmates need only have " 'some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made.' " See Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 309, 86 S. Ct. 1497, 1500, 16 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1966) (quoting Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 111, 86 S. Ct. 760, 763, 15 L. Ed. 2d 620 (1966)). Section 1253 is constitutional unless the different treatment of pretrial detainees is " 'so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature's actions were irrational.' " Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 14, 108 S. Ct. 849, 859, 99 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988) (quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97, 99 S. Ct. 939, 943, 59 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1979)). See also Dickerson v. Latessa, 872 F.2d 1116, 1120 (1st Cir. 1989).
The McGinnis Court noted that New York had changed its law and abolished the consideration of good-time in the calculation of a minimum parole date. Under the new law, a prisoner appeared before the Parole Board when his minimum term expired regardless of how much time the prisoner had spent in pretrial detention or how much good-time credit had been earned. The inmates in McGinnis were allowed to elect this new law but did not. The Court pointed out that as a result of the change in the law the inmates were in the same position as those who were let out on bail and who were convicted for offenses committed after the new law took effect. Id. at 269, 93 S. Ct. at 1059. The Court also noted that the impact of the difference between the two groups was lessened because the inmates were only being denied the "potential" to earn additional good-time but did receive a day-for-day credit for active time spent in jail prior to trial. Id