Court Opinion

ID: 9845723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:26:58.926731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:20.160330
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
dissenting.
For the reasons contained in the memorandum decision of the district judge, I *244respectfully dissent from the opinion of the Court. Briefly summarized, the district judge reasoned:
1. The Commission on Pardons and Paroles (the Commission) had for many years used the mechanism of granting a discharge from the first of two consecutive, indeterminate sentences to allow the inmate to begin serving the second sentence. This was a pragmatic solution allowing the inmate to become eligible for parole when an appropriate period of the aggregate sentences had been served in custody.
2. The action of the Board of Corrections (the Board) in revoking the discharges previously granted to the petitioners in this case retroactively rescinded the use of this mechanism. There was no basis for this retroactive rescission.
3. The circumstances in Smith v. State, decided by another district judge, are distinguishable. Since the second sentence had been vacated by an appellate court in Smith, the effect of the discharge granted by the Commission was to cause the immediate release of the inmate.
4. The Board had no jurisdiction to overrule the discharges granted by the Commission. Once the Commission has acted in an area within its jurisdiction, the Board has no authority to modify or override the Commission’s determination.