Court Opinion

ID: 9688832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:07:50.164456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.503085
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
concurring.
I deem it advisable to note that the opinion here is correct so far as it goes, but it stops when it should proceed. The opinion responds to the argument that the Legislature intended to have the mitigated punishment statute applied wherever it could constitutionally be applied by holding that the defendant is too late because the judgment became final before the statute became effective. No matter how correct that technical holding may be, its justice and logic are wholly invisible to a defendant who was sentenced only 2 months before the mitigating statute was enacted. The fact that the court no longer can alter or change the defendant’s final judgment and sentence does not mean that a mitigated punishment statute cannot be applied by the board of parole to appropriate cases within its jurisdiction in determining the date of eligibility for parole.
Exactly the same legal and equitable principles which support the rule that a court shall grant the defendant the benefit of a legislative act mitigating punishment, adopted prior to final judgment, also support the proposition that a board of parole, in exercising its jurisdiction, should grant the benefit of such an amendatory act to committed offenders in determining the date of eligibility for release on parole. The determination of the time when a prisoner becomes eligible for parole is a *733legislative function relating to prison government and discipline and is not part of a judicial sentence. See People ex rel. Kubala v. Kinney, 25 Ill. 2d 491, 185 N. E. 2d 337. That legislative determination in this state is set out in section 83-1,110, R. S. Supp., 1972, and related statutes.
Where a criminal statute is amended by reducing the minimum sentence provided by law, after the judgment of conviction and sentence of a defendant have become final, the amendatory act should be applied to the defendant’s sentence by the board of parole in determining the date of eligibility of the committed offender for release on parole under the provisions of section 83-1,110, R. S. Supp., 1972. It is only logical and reasonable to assume that the Legislature intended the new mitigated punishment, which it now feels fits the crime, to apply whenever possible. The defendant here may be entitled to have the amendatory act applied by the board of parole.