Court Opinion

ID: 9896340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:09:38.352527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:42.490663
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                         COURT OF APPEAL

                           FIRST CIRCUIT

                       NUMBER 2023 CA 0600

                         LARRY ROBINSON

                               VERSUS

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, WARDEN
 TRAVIS DAY, ASSISTANT WARDEN, KARLA WHEAT AND MS.
                        CAROLYN THOMAS

                                               Judgment Rendered:    NOV 0 9 2023

                          On appeal from the
                   Nineteenth Judicial District Court
              In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                          State of Louisiana
                       Docket Number C723455

             Honorable Trudy M. White, Judge Presiding

 Larry Robinson                         Plaintiff/Appellant
 Angie, LA                              In Proper Person

 Debra A. Rutledge                      Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
 Baton Rouge, LA                        Louisiana Department of Public
                                        Safety and Corrections

       BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.
GUIDRY, C.J.

         Larry Robinson, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of

Public Safety and Corrections (" the Department"), appeals a judgment of the

district court dismissing his petition for judicial review.     For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

                      FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        In 2017, the petitioner herein, Robinson, entered a plea of guilty to La. R.S.
14: 42. 1,   forcible rape, and was sentenced to serve a period of 35 years at hard

labor with two years of said sentence " served without benefits of probation, parole

or suspension of sentence."     Thereafter, on September 14, 2022, Robinson filed a

grievance, Administrative Remedy Procedure # RCC -2022- 172.        In his complaint,

Robinson challenged the Department' s decision regarding his parole eligibility
date.   Robinson requested that his master prison record " reflect the terms of his

plea bargain," which, according to Robinson, would make him eligible for parole

after serving the first two years of his sentence.

        After being denied the relief requested at the first and second steps,

Robinson sought judicial review of the Department' s decision in the Nineteenth

Judicial District Court.      The commissioner assigned to review the petition

concluded that the parole eligibility date determined by the Department was

correct.     The commissioner recommended that Robinson' s petition be dismissed.

The district court, thereafter, rendered a judgment in favor of the Department,

dismissing Robinson' s petition for judicial review with prejudice.    Robinson now

appeals and asserts that the district court erred in " not considering the phrasing of

the court' s sentencing minutes as proof of a binding contract between the State and

the Plaintiff."

                                           2
                                           DISCUSSION

          As provided for in the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Procedure Act,

an   offender     aggrieved     by    an   adverse     decision    rendered     pursuant        to    any

administrative remedy procedure can institute proceedings for judicial review by

filing a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.                      La.

R.S. 15: 1177.     The review shall be confined to the record and shall be limited to

the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy

request filed at the agency level.         La. R. S. 15: 1177( A)(5).     The court may reverse

or modify the agency decision " only if substantial rights of the appellant have been

prejudiced"     because the administrative decisions or findings are: ( 1) in violation of

constitutional or statutory provisions; ( 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the

agency; ( 3) made upon unlawful procedure; ( 4) affected by other error of law; ( 5)

arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion; or ( 6) manifestly

erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole

record.     La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)( 9).     On review of the district court' s judgment in a

suit for judicial review under La. R.S. 15: 1177, no deference is owed by the court

of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no

deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to the factual findings or legal

conclusions of the court of appeal.              Grimes v. Louisiana Department of Public

Safety and Corrections, 20- 0089, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11112120), 316 So. 3d 35,

im

          At the time the offense herein was committed, La. R.S. 14: 42. 1 provided in

part: "   At least two years of the sentence imposed shall be without benefit of

probation,     parole,   or   suspension    of   sentence."     Accordingly,      at   the     time   of

Robinson' s     sentencing,     and   as   reflected   in the     transcript,   the    court    stated,

 Having entered a plea of guilty to R.S. 14:42. 1 FORCIBLE RAPE, [ the] Court

at this time sentences the defendant to serve a period of THIRTY-FIVE ( 35)

                                                   3
YEARS at hard labor ... TWO (2) YEARS of said sentence is to be served without

benefits of probation, parole or suspension of sentence." Because the district court

sentenced Robinson to two years without the benefit of probation, parole, or the

suspension of his sentence, Robinson contends that he should be eligible for parole

once he has served two years of his sentence.          What Robinson fails to recognize,

however,       is that our courts have distinguished between parole eligibility and

eligibility for parole consideration.       The two are distinct and different matters.

Parole     eligibility   is   determined   by   the   sentence.
                                                                    Eligibility   for   parole

consideration, however, is dependent upon meeting certain criteria and conditions

specified by statute. See Bosworth v. Whitle , 627 So. 2d 629, 631 ( La. 1993).             It

is clear that an inmate who has parole eligibility set forth under his sentence may

not be eligible for parole consideration under statutory law. See Lay v. Louisiana

Department of Correction- Stalder ex rel. leyoub, 98- 0592, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir.

4/ 1/ 99), 734 So. 2d 782, 785, writ denied 99- 1173 ( La. 9/ 17/ 99), 747 So. 2d 1102.

The Department determines parole eligibility pursuant to the directives of La. R.S.

15: 574. 4.    See Holmes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

11- 2221, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/$/ 12), 93 So. 3d 761, 764, writ denied, 12- 1788

La. 12/ 14/ 12),    104 So. 3d 436; see also State v. Simmons, 20- 0695, p. 5 ( La. App.

1st Cir. 6/ 4/ 21), 327 So. 3d 542, 545 n.5. ( observing that in determining parole

eligibility dates, the Department looks to the applicable statutory criteria set out in

La. R.S.      15: 574.4, and administers these standards and criteria by applying them,

as well as other relevant statutes and interpretative jurisprudence, to determine

whether or not a particular inmate is parole eligible, i.e.,            eligible for parole

consideration by the board).

       Contrary to Robinson' s contentions, nothing about his imposed sentence

establishes his eligibility for parole consideration.     Such a determination is the sole

function of the Department and stems from La. R.S.                15: 574. 4 rather than the

                                                4
forcible rape statute.   As expressed by the commissioner, Robinson failed to offer

any evidence that he became eligible for parole consideration after serving only the

first two years of his sentence.   We find no error in the district court' s ruling. The

Department' s determination regarding the petitioner' s parole eligibility date was

neither arbitrary or capricious, nor in violation of any constitutional or statutory
provision.

                                   CONCLUSION

      For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

affirmed.
             All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff/appellant, Larry
Robinson.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           5