CO Code § 17-22.5-302 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 17 - Corrections|Article 22.5 - Inmate and Parole Time Computation|Part 3 - Offenders Sentenced for Crimes Committed on or After July 1, 1979|§ 17-22.5-302. Earned Time

  In addition to the good time authorized in section 17-22.5-301, earned time, not to exceed thirty days for every six months of incarceration, may be deducted from the inmate's sentence upon a demonstration to the department by the inmate that he has made substantial and consistent progress in each of the following categories:   Work and training, including attendance, promptness, performance, cooperation, care of materials, and safety;    Group living, including housekeeping, personal hygiene, cooperation, social adjustment, and double bunking;    Participation in counseling sessions and involvement in self-help groups;    Progress toward the goals and programs established by the Colorado diagnostic program. (1.3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section to the contrary, after his or her first ninety days in administrative segregation, a state inmate in administrative segregation shall be eligible to receive earned time if he or she meets the criteria required by this section or any modified criteria developed by the department to allow a state inmate to receive the maximum amount of earned time allowable for good behavior and participation in any programs available to the state inmate in administrative segregation. (1.5)   , “positive progress”, at a minimum, means that the person is attentive, responsive, and cooperative during the course of instruction and satisfactorily completes required work assignments equivalent to the courses and hours necessary for advancement at a rate of one grade level per calendar year in the school district where such inmate was last enrolled.    Repealed.          The department shall develop objective standards for measuring substantial and consistent progress in the categories listed in subsection (1) of this section. Such standards shall be applied in all evaluations of inmates for the earned time authorized in this section.    For each inmate sentenced for a crime committed on or after July 1, 1979, but before July 1, 1985, the department shall review the performance record of the inmate and shall grant, consistent with the provisions of this section, an earned time deduction from the sentence imposed. Such review shall be conducted at least annually; except that, in the case of an inmate who has one year or less of his sentence remaining to be served, the review shall be conducted at least semiannually. The earned time deduction authorized by this section shall vest upon being granted and may not be withdrawn once it is granted.    For each inmate sentenced for a crime committed on or after July 1, 1985, the department shall review the performance record of the inmate and may grant, withhold, withdraw, or restore, consistent with the provisions of this section, an earned time deduction from the sentence imposed. Such review shall be conducted as specified in subsection (3) of this section; except that the earned time deduction authorized by this subsection (4) shall not vest upon being granted and may be withdrawn once it is granted.    For each inmate sentenced for a crime committed on or after July 1, 1987, the department shall not credit such inmate with more than one-half of his allowable earned time for any six-month period or portion thereof unless such inmate was employed or was participating in institutional training or treatment programs provided by the department or was participating in some combination of such employment, training, or treatment programs. This subsection (5) shall not apply to those inmates excused from such employment or programs for medical reasons.      History. Source: L. 84: Entire article R&RE, p. 521, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (5) added, p. 654, § 10, effective March 27. L. 88: (1.5) added, p. 697, § 3, effective July 1. L. 90: (1.5)(a) amended and (1.5)(b) repealed, pp. 976, 977, §§ 3, 7, effective July 1. L. 91: (1.5)(a) amended, p. 431, § 9, effective May 24. L. 92: (1.5)(a) amended, p. 2173, § 23, effective June 2. L. 2011: (1.3) added,(SB 11-176), ch. 289, p. 1343, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2020: (1.5)(a) amended,(HB 20-1402), ch. 216, p. 1047, § 29, effective June 30.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 17-22.5-102 as it existed prior to 1984.   Cross references:   For the Colorado diagnostic program, see article 40 of this title 17.   ANNOTATION   An inmate does not have a vested right in earned time, so the inmate's punishment is not increased by withholding earned time from the inmate for not participating in sex offender treatment. Reeves v. Colo. Dept. of Corr., 155 P.3d 648 (Colo. App. 2007).   The creation and distribution of credits to be applied against an inmate's sentence are matters committed to the authority of the legislature; trial court orders do not prevail over the letter and intent of statutory provisions adopted by the general assembly. Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989).   For crimes committed on or after July 1, 1985, deductions for earned time are within discretionary authority of the department of corrections. Since the department of corrections may withhold, withdraw, or restore earned time deductions, an inmate's maximum control date, as initially calculated by the department of corrections, is not necessarily the date upon which he is entitled to unconditional release. Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989).   Granting of earned time credit for educational programs under subsection (1.5) lies with the discretion of the department. To read “shall” in subsection (1.5) in a mandatory sense would create an absurd result. An inmate has no clear right to receive and department has no clear duty to grant earned time credit. Verrier v. Dept. of Corr., 77 P.3d 875 (Colo. App. 2003).   An inmate who is incarcerated in the state prison system is eligible for two types of time deduction from his sentence. The first is “good time” pursuant to § 17-22.5-301 , which rewards the inmate who substantially observes the rules and regulations of the facility in which he is confined and who faithfully performs his assigned duties. The second is “earned time” under this section which is provided if the inmate makes substantial progress in matters such as work and training. Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo. 1989).   Inmate not entitled to earned time for time spent in county jail because statutory requirements of this section were not met. People v. Alderman, 720 P.2d 1000 (Colo. App. 1986).   Good time and earned time credits do not constitute service of sentence and are only used to determine inmate's parole eligibility date. Thorson v. Dept. of Corr., 801 P.2d 540 (Colo. 1990); Myers v. Price, 842 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1992).   Subsection (3) of this section and §§ 16-11-310 (now repealed), 17-22.5-301 (2) , and 17-22.5-303 (2) do not preclude the reincarceration of a person for violating his parole even though his time served, together with his good time and earned time credits accrued, equal or exceed the length of the sentence originally imposed. Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo. 1989); Williamson v. Jordan, 797 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1990); Jones v. Martinez, 799 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1990).   The earned time and good time provisions of this section and § 17-22.5-301 do not preclude the reincarceration of an inmate for violation of his parole. These sections, together with § 16-11-310 (now repealed), were only intended to establish the mandatory date of release on parole. Thus, with respect to parole, the good time and earned time credits “vest” only for the purpose of determining parole eligibility, not for purposes of determining whether reincarceration is possible once a former inmate has violated his parole. Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo. 1989); Williamson v. Jordan, 797 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1990); Jones v. Martinez, 799 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1990).   Inmates in administrative segregation do not meet certain criteria required for an award of earned time credits, even under the apparently mandatory subsection. Tempelman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367 (10th Cir. 1994).