175 So. 3d 437
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Jeremy Boddye pled no contest/guilty in 2013 to three felonies and was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 17 years, with the sentencing court expressly granting credit for time served on each count (479 days total credit claimed).
- DPSC credited time served only on the burglary docket (79,539) and refused to apply the same pre-sentence credit to the two consecutive possession-of-stolen-things dockets (80,324 and 80,325), citing the amended La. C. Cr. P. art. 880 prohibition on overlapping credit.
- Boddye pursued administrative remedy procedures (denied at both steps) and then filed a petition for judicial review; a commissioner and the district court upheld DPSC’s computation and dismissed his appeal.
- The 2011 amendment to La. C. Cr. P. art. 880 added a prohibition on overlapping jail credit for consecutive sentences, which DPSC relied on to deny duplicate credit for the same pre-sentence period.
- The sentencing court had specifically ordered credit on each consecutive sentence as part of plea agreements; the court of appeal found a conflict between those sentencing orders and the statutory amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPSC must apply pre-sentence jail credit to each consecutive sentence as ordered by the sentencing court | Boddye: The sentencing orders expressly granted credit on each sentence and DPSC must implement the sentencing court's directives | DPSC: 2011 Art. 880 bars overlapping jail credit on consecutive sentences, so duplicate credit is not allowed | Held: Reversed — DPSC must apply the sentencing court’s orders and grant the credits as imposed; DPSC cannot unilaterally refuse enforcement based on Art. 880 |
| Whether the agency or district court may correct an alleged illegal sentence on judicial review | Boddye: Agency/district court should honor sentencing orders; relief sought is enforcement of those orders | DPSC/District Ct: They treated the orders as invalid under Art. 880 and refused relief | Held: Agency and district court lacked authority to alter the sentencing court’s orders; only the sentencing court or direct appellate review can correct the error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. LeBlanc, 156 So.3d 1168 (La. 2015) (governing-law rule for punishment tied to law in effect at time of offense)
- State v. Louis, 645 So.2d 1144 (La. 1994) (plea-agreement validity analyzed under contract principles)
- Blair v. Stalder, 798 So.2d 132 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2001) (custodian must carry out sentence as imposed by trial judge)
- Robinson v. Stalder, 21 So.3d 318 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2008) (agency/district court cannot correct an illegal sentence on judicial review; sentencing court may correct)
- Byrnside v. State, 795 So.2d 435 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2001) (plea agreements prohibited by law are void and may be rejected)
- Abbott v. LeBlanc, 115 So.3d 504 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2013) (statutory role of commissioners in reviewing prisoner incarceration matters)