Opinion ID: 2011041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Unjust Imprisonment

Text: Finally, McAllister argues that he was entitled to relief under the District's Unjust Imprisonment Act of 1980, [10] and summary judgment on this count was improper. [11] The District's Unjust Imprisonment Act is limited in scope and is applicable only to persons who are convicted and subsequently imprisoned for offenses which they did not commit, and who can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they did not commit the offense for which they were incarcerated, or any other similarly imprisonable offense. D.C.Code § 1-1222 (1992); REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON BILL 3-251 at 6 (1980) (comments of Councilmember Clarke). Based on its limited applicability, we agree with the District that McAllister has no cognizable rights under this statute. First, McAllister's sentence was corrected, his conviction was not reversed or set aside [and he was not] pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction. D.C.Code § 1-1222(1), supra note 10. Second, McAllister entered a guilty plea to attempted UUVan admission of guilt [12] putting him outside the protection of the Act because (1) attempted UUV is an offense against the District; and (2) the Act specifically denies relief to persons who entered guilty pleas. D.C.Code § 1-1225, supra note 10. For all these reasons, summary judgment on the count was proper. [13] Affirmed.