Court Opinion

ID: 7059230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 07:15:30.915124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:12:06.215811
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Arterburn, C.J.
This Court reversed the trial court which released the appellee on a writ of habeas corpus (see the opinion dated March 17, 1971.) The appellee has filed his petition *186for rehearing and contests the method used by the court in the calculation of his good time. The appellee, as stated in the original opinion, would have been released normally after serving his term on October 20, 1969. He was released by the trial court under its calculation of good time on July 25, 1969. The appellee contends that when he lost his credit for good time, because of an infraction of the rules, his good time should commence running at the higher rate which he would have had if he had not committed the infraction. Our interpretation of the statute is that when an infraction occurs the prisoner starts anew on the scheduled good time credit at the lowest rate of three days for the first month, four days for the second month, etc. progressively.
Burns Ind. Stat. Anno. § 13-511 states:
“Good-time allowance of prisoners — Indiana State Farm— Correctional department of Indiana Women’s Prison.— Every prisoner who is now or hereafter may be confined in the Indiana State Farm or correctional department of the Indiana Women’s Prison and who, while an inmate of said institution, shall have no infractions of the rules and regulations of the institution nor infractions of the laws of the state of Indiana or laws of the United States recorded against him or her, and who performs in a faithful manner the duties assigned to him or her while a prisoner shall be entitled to a diminution of time from his sentence as indicated in the following table, for the respective months of his sentence (including time being served for unpaid fine or costs) and pro rata for any part of a month. In cases of prisoners sentenced for a specified number of days instead of months, good time shall be computed on the basis of thirty (30) days to the month.
Number of Months of Sentence Good Time Total Good Time Made
1 --------------3 days------------ 3 days
2 -------------4 days------------ 7 days
3 -------------5 days------------12 days
4 -------------6 days------------18 days
5 --------------7 days------------25 days
6 -------------8 days------------33 days
7 -------------9 days-------------42 days
8 -------------10 days------------52 days
*187Number of Months of Sentence Good Time Total Good Time Made
9_________ —10 days____________62 days
10_________ __10 days------------72 days
11_________ —10 days,____________82 days
12_________ —10 days____________92 days
13 _________ —10 days____________102 days
14 _________ —10 days____________112 days
15 _________ __10 days____________122 days
16 _________ —10 days------------132 days
17 _________ —10 days____________142 days
18 _________ —10 days____________152 days
19 _________ —10 days------------162 days
20 _________ —10 days____________172 days
21________ —10 days____________182 days
22_________ __10 days____________192 days
23 _________ —10 days____________202 days
24 _________ —10 days____________212 days
“Any prisoner who shall have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a longer period of time than twenty-four (24) months shall, in addition to the good time provided in the foregoing table, be entitled to a diminution of ten (10) days per month from his sentence for each month which such prisoner is confined beyond such period of twenty-four (24) months. (Acts 1923, ch. 38, § 1, p. 127; 1943, ch. 28, § 1, p. 59.)”
It is to be noted under this statute that the prisoner is entitled to good time only if he “shall have no infractions of the rules.” Burns Ind. Stat. Anno. § 13-512, provides that where a prisoner is found guilty of an infraction of the rules, he may be deprived of the good time gained. The objective of the “good time” statute is to give prison authorities control over the prisoners and induce the prisoners to behave well. With this objective in mind, we feel our interpretation which we have previously stated in our original opinion, carries out more accurately the objective of the statute and gives prison authorities somewhat more latitude.
Under appellee’s own calculation, as stated further in his petition for rehearing, he would not have been entitled for release until August 6, 1969. Nevertheless, the trial court released appellee on July 25, 1969.
*188In view of what we have said, the petition for rehearing is denied.
Givan, DeBruler, Prentice, JJ., concur; Hunter, J., dissents with opinion.