Opinion ID: 1438781
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Duty to Calculate Release Date for Sentences of Split Confinement

Text: As noted above, however, Plaintiff was not a TDOC prisoner. His judgment orders clearly reflect sentences to split confinement or shock probation, i.e., probation following a specific period (one year or less) of confinement. The language in the sections of the Sentencing Act cited above must be read in pari materia with the other statutory provisions expressly addressing split confinement sentences. Thus, we perceive the pertinent question for the federal court in this case to be whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-8-201(a)(3) imposes any duty upon a Tennessee sheriff to calculate the release date and order the release of a prisoner sentenced to serve a split confinement sentence. [13] Appearing as amicus curiae, the State asserts in its brief that a sheriff has the responsibility for calculating all sentences of split confinement. At oral argument, counsel for the State asserted that this responsibility is well known and accepted by (almost) all sheriffs. However, the State has not cited us to any specific statutory authority actually supporting this proposition. Rather, the State analogizes to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-307(d), which provides that, with respect to sentences of periodic confinement up to one year, [14] [t]he sheriff, warden, superintendent or other official having responsibility for the safekeeping of the defendant in any local jail or workhouse shall adopt procedures for the release of the defendant at the time specified in the order of judgment. [15] Subsection307(d) is not applicable to the facts of this case, which deals with split confinement. The statute dealing with split confinement, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-306, does not contain an analogous provision. In spite of a diligent search, we have not found any express statutory provision regarding who bears the responsibility for calculating the release date of a defendant sentenced to serve a period of confinement pursuant to a sentence of split confinement. This omission is puzzling and doubtless accounts for some of the confusion in the arguments made both to the District Court and to this Court. Clearly someone must be held accountable for this very important responsibility. We therefore consider whether section 8-8-201(a)(3) or any other statute imposes that responsibility on the sheriff for these sentences. Split confinement sentences are, by definition, different from sentences of continuous confinement-technically, they are probated sentences. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-35-306; XX-XX-XXX(a), Sentencing Comm'n Cmts. Prisoners serving such sentences are limited to continuous confinement of no more than one year in a county jail or workhouse, followed by probation. Id. § 40-35-306(a). Accordingly, prisoners serving a split confinement sentence are not assigned a release eligibility date and do not qualify for parole. [16] In such circumstances, the TDOC does not become involved. In fact, any release eligibility date determined by the TDOC would be meaningless for a prisoner serving a sentence of split confinement because under the statutory scheme addressing eligibility for parole, no person shall be released before serving at least one year. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-28-115(b). In this case, Plaintiff was effectively sentenced as a Range I standard (30%) offender to eight years imprisonment. Without the provision for split confinement, his earliest release eligibility date would have been after service of 2.4 years (less credits), far beyond the time mandated by the judgment. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-101, Sentencing Comm'n Cmts (Sentence Ranges & Release Eligibility chart). Although the language of section 8-8-201(a)(3) is broad, it does not expressly impose a duty upon the sheriff to calculate release dates and order release of prisoners. [17] We note, however, that subsection (a)(1) of that same statute expressly lists as a duty of the sheriff that the sheriff  [e]xecute and return, according to law, the process and orders of the courts of record of this state, and of officers of competent authority, with due diligence, when delivered to the sheriff for that purpose. Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-8-201(a)(1) (Supp. 2008) [18] (emphases added). Under this subsection, a sheriff has the duty to see that the orders of the courts, including judgment orders, are enforced. Additionally, local jailers or superintendents have the duty, under several statutes, to determine any sentencing credits earned by a defendant serving a sentence of split confinement. See, e.g., Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 41-2-145,-146, and147 (2006). Since those must be granted and calculated locally, it is reasonable to repose all calculation responsibilities on the local jailer or superintendent. Other courts have similarly interpreted a sheriff's general statutory duty to keep and maintain prisoners as including a duty to effect their timely release. See, e.g., Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781, 792 (5th Cir.1969) (construing a Texas sheriff's statutory duty to keep safely prisoners committed to the jail by court order as including the duty to effect [a prisoner's] timely release) (citing Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 5116 (Vernon 1962), now codified at Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 351.041 (Vernon 2005)). Similarly, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi has interpreted the Mississippi statutory provisions imposing general duties on sheriffs as conferring a duty to hold in the county jail only those persons who are lawfully imprisoned. Hollands v. Attala County, No. Civ. A. 1:94CV206DD, 1995 WL 1945442, at  (N.D.Miss. Aug.1, 1995). The Hollands court further stated that [i]n order to properly execute these statutory duties, the sheriff is necessarily required to determine if and when that prisoner is to be released in accordance with the order of commitment. Id. Accordingly, we conclude that the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-8-201(a)(1) & (3) imposing duties on a sheriff to [e]xecute and return, according to law, the process and orders of the courts of record of this state, and to [t]ake charge and custody of the jail ... and of the prisoners therein; receive those lawfully committed, and keep them personally, or by deputies or jailer, until discharged by law, includes a duty to note the confinement period designated on a judgment order of split confinement involving continuous confinement for a period of one year or less, determine and apply sentence credits, if any, calculate the release date, and release a prisoner at the appropriate time.