Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/410/263/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-10-24 05:04:40
Document Index: 653561068

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 803', '§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 230', '§ 230']

MCGINNIS V. ROYSTER, 410 U. S. 263 (1973) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 410 > MCGINNIS V. ROYSTER, 410 U. S. 263 (1973)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 410 U. S. 263
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J.,and BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 410 U. S. 277. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The question before us concerns the constitutionality of § 230(3) of the New York Correction Law, which denied appellee state prisoners "good time" credit for their presentence incarceration in county jails. [Footnote 1] Appellees chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The challenged New York sentencing system is a complex one, and some basic definitions are required at the outset. Jail time denotes that time an individual passes chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Although appellees did receive jail-time credit for the period of their presentence incarceration in county jail, § 230(3) explicitly forbids, in calculating the minimum parole date, any good time credit for the period of county jail detention served prior to transfer to state prison. [Footnote 5] Appellee Royster, being unable to post bail, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Two additional points merit mention. While New York does deny good time credit for jail time in computing the minimum parole date under §§ 230(2) and (3), it allows such credit in calculating the statutory release date under § 230(4). [Footnote 6] Finally, § 230(3) itself provides that good time credit for jail time shall be awarded to those prisoners confined after sentence in county penitentiaries, as opposed to those convicted of felonies, such as appellees, who are transferred after sentence to state prison. [Footnote 7] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We first note that any relative disadvantage the distinction works on appellees is lessened by the fact that New York, on September 1, 1967, replaced § 230 of its Correction Law with §§ 803 and 805, which apply to all convictions for offenses after that date. [Footnote 10] Under the new chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We note, further, that the distinction of which appellees complain arose in the course of the State's sensitive chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
As the statute and regulations chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
contemplate state evaluation of an inmate's progress toward rehabilitation, in awarding good time, [Footnote 20] it is reasonable not to award such time for pretrial detention chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We do not agree with the court below that the integrity of appellants' assertions as to rehabilitation is undermined by the fact that the State does grant under § 230(3) good time credit for presentence jail time to chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Neither appellees nor the court below contended that increased opportunity for state evaluation of an inmate's behavior and rehabilitative progress was not a purpose of the challenged provision of § 230(3). Appellees state chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
only that the rehabilitative purpose was not the "overriding" one, [Footnote 23] and the District Court noted that "the legislature's primary aim in enacting the good time statute was to foster and insure the maintenance of prison discipline." 332 F.Supp. at 978 (emphasis added). [Footnote 24] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
When classifications do not call for strict judicial scrutiny, this is the only approach consistent with proper judicial regard for the judgments of the Legislative Branch. The search for legislative purpose is often elusive enough, Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U. S. 217 (1971), without a requirement that primacy be ascertained. Legislation chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Under § 230(3) of the New York Correction Law, a prisoner loses "good time" as punishment for offenses against the discipline of the prison. The statutory appearance of inmates before a parole board is computed by allowance of up to 10 days for "good conduct" each month under the law governing appellees. [Footnote 2/1] No "good time" chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Id. at 321, 295 N.Y.S.2d at 233. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The claim that "good time" is correlated to rehabilitative programs that only prisons have is the red herring in this litigation. The District Court exposed the fallacy in that rationale. Since the "good time" credit is to induce good behavior by prisoners while they are confined, the place of their confinement becomes irrelevant. Jail-time allowance is allowed those confined in county penitentiaries. § 230(3). And, as I have said, jail time is credited in computing a prisoner's statutory release date. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We deal here with a deep-seated inequity. In New York City, as of 1964, 49% of those accused were imprisoned before trial, while only 40% were imprisoned after conviction. [Footnote 2/4] See Wald, Pretrial Detention and chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Another sample of 385 defendants showed that 64% of those continuously in jail from arraignment to adjudication were sentenced to prison, while only 17% of the 374 who made bail received prison sentences. Rankin, The Effect of Pretrial Detention, 39 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 641, 643 (1964). Detained persons are more likely to be sentenced to prison than bailed persons, regardless of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary