Ankeney v. Raemisch, Exec. Dir., Colorado Dep't of Corrections
2015 CO 14
| Colo. | 2015Background
- Randal Ankeney was sentenced in 2008 to 8 years imprisonment for class 4 felony child abuse, plus a statutorily mandated 3-year parole term; DOC initially set his mandatory release date at October 19, 2015.
- Ankeney sued (habeas + mandamus) in 2012, claiming entitlement to additional good time and education-earned time credits and arguing those credits should reduce his mandatory release date (not just parole eligibility), which would make mandatory release November 19, 2011.
- The district court initially denied relief; the court of appeals reversed, holding that because Ankeney fell under a “mandatory parole scheme,” good time/earned time must apply to mandatory release.
- DOC recalculated and released Ankeney to parole on August 28, 2013 based on earned time under part 4; the district court later ordered immediate termination of his parole, crediting alleged unlawful incarceration against parole.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted direct review and reversed the district court: it held Ankeney’s sentence is governed by part 4, and the part-3 good time/earned time credits at issue apply only to parole eligibility, not mandatory release for post-1979 offenders covered by part 4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good time credits under §17-22.5-301 apply to mandatory release date for offenders convicted after July 1, 1979 (and specifically after 1993) | Ankeney: part-3 good time credits must reduce mandatory release date, not only parole eligibility; thus he was incarcerated beyond mandatory release | DOC: part 4 governs Ankeney; part-3 good time/earned time apply only to parole eligibility historically and do not reduce mandatory release under part 4 | Held: part-3 good time (§301) and earned time (§302(1)) historically only affect parole eligibility; for offenders governed by part 4 (like Ankeney), mandatory release/discharge is governed by part-4 formulae and §405 earned time reductions, not part-3 credits |
| Whether Ankeney is governed by part 4 (the 1990 scheme) or part 3 | Ankeney: he seeks application of part-3 credits to his discharge date (implying part-3 coverage) | DOC: Ankeney committed his crime after July 1, 1979 and was incarcerated after June 7, 1990; section 406 makes part 4 applicable to him | Held: Ankeney is governed by part 4; applicability provisions prevent mixing reductions from different parts—release governed by one scheme or the other |
| Whether "education earned time" under §17-22.5-302(1.5) required additional reduction of his discharge date beyond part-4 earned time under §405 | Ankeney: entitled to extra education-earned credits under §302(1.5) that should reduce his mandatory release | DOC: part-4 §405 already provides earned-time credit for education/progress and DOC applied §405 credits; §302(1.5) does not further reduce a sentence governed by part 4 | Held: §302(1.5) cannot further reduce discharge for inmates governed by part 4; any education-earned time relevant to part-4 inmates is governed by §405 and was applied by DOC |
| Whether unlawful overdetention (if it existed) must be credited against the mandatory parole term so as to end parole early | Ankeney: period unlawfully incarcerated should be credited against his 3-year parole, so parole already completed | DOC: disputed both existence of unlawful overdetention beyond mandatory release and whether such overdetention credits parole term | Held: Court declined to decide whether excessive incarceration may be credited against mandatory parole because it concluded Ankeney was not incarcerated past his mandatory release date; therefore parole termination was incorrect |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Norton, 63 P.3d 339 (Colo. 2003) (discusses sentencing regime changes and parole components)
- People v. Luther, 58 P.3d 1013 (Colo. 2002) (addresses modern sentencing/parole structure)
- Martin v. People, 27 P.3d 846 (Colo. 2001) (historical discussion of sentencing changes)
- Thiret v. Kautzky, 792 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1990) (held part-3 good/earned time affect parole eligibility, and explained mid-1979–1985 "mandatory" parole equivalence)
- Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo. 1999) (distinguishes imprisonment and mandatory parole as separate sentence elements)
- Jones v. Martinez, 799 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1990) (good and earned time credits are not service of sentence but affect parole eligibility)
- Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo. 1989) (same principle on credits and parole eligibility)
- Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989) (interpretation of good time/earned time and parole eligibility)
- People v. Edwards, 196 P.3d 1138 (Colo. 2008) (addressed crediting presentence confinement against parole portion in a related context)
- Meyers v. Price, 842 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1992) (discusses part-4 enactment and interplay with part-3 credits)