Opinion ID: 1761033
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Other Factors Support Retroactivity.

Text: The DOC's retroactive application of HB 406 is also supported by the plain language used in that bill. [58] HB 406 authorizes street credit for time spent on parole. Obviously, spent is a past-tense verb; and the General Assembly did not see fit to add any modifying or limiting language (such as time spent after the effective date of this act) to this facially broad provision. So we agree with the DOC that the plain language of HB 406 supports a conclusion that the General Assembly intended for the street credit provision to apply to all time spent on paroleincluding time spent on parole before the effective date of HB 406. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the General Assembly later amended KRS 439.344 itself to provide that, with certain exceptions, [t]he period of time spent on parole shall count as a part of the prisoner's sentence. ... Had the General Assembly disagreed with the DOC's interpretation of HB 406, it would have been illogical for the General Assembly to have permanently amended KRS 439.344 by inserting similar language to that used in HB 406. Finally, we must be careful not to examine HB 406's street credit provision in a vacuum. Rather, we must construe the street credit provision in conjunction with the other sections of that bill. As our predecessor court held, [s]tatutes in pari materia or those which relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things, or which have a common purpose, must be construed together and the legislative intention apparent from the whole enactment must be carried into effect. [59] We conclude that the General Assembly's intent regarding the street credit provision may be gleaned by examining the subsection that immediately follows it. Part I, Section I(5)(c)(5) of HB 406 provides that [notwithstanding KRS 439.354, a final discharge shall be issued when the prisoner has been out of prison on parole a sufficient period of time to have been eligible for discharge from prison by minimum expiration of sentence had he not been paroled. ... [60] So construing the street credit section together with the minimum discharge section leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the General Assembly intended for the DOC to release or discharge as many prisoners or parolees as possible in order to save as many state dollars as possible. Since the most efficacious and logical manner of ensuring maximum savings is to apply retroactively the street credit provision, we conclude that the DOC's retroactive application of HB 406 was in accordance with the General Assembly's intent. After all, it would have been illogical for the General Assembly to have intended a restrictive version of the street credit provision while simultaneously cutting the DOC's funding and ordering the DOC to release prisoners on their minimum expiration dates. In summary, we conclude that the Pulaski Circuit Court erred when it determined that the General Assembly did not intend HB 406 to have retroactive effect. We then must turn to whether this error is sufficient to rise to the level necessary to grant a writ. [61]