Background

• These consolidated appeals involve the Alabama Department of Corrections (DOC) challenging a trial court ruling limiting deductions from work-release earnings and Merritt, on behalf of a plaintiff class, cross-appealed with multiple challenges.
• Ex parte Alabama Department of Corrections (2011) established the statutory framework for work-release and the 40% cap on withholdings under § 14-8-6, along with regulations governing charges to inmates.
• § 14-8-2 authorizes a work-release program; inmates may work outside the facility while remaining confined at other times.
• § 14-8-6 allows withholding ‘cost incident to confinement’ but caps withholding at 40% of earnings; the Department adopted Admin. Reg. No. 410, 440, and 601 to govern deductions beyond confinement costs.
• The trial court found DOC could not collect beyond 32.5% under its interpretation and enjoined certain charges, staying the injunction to permit regulatory amendments.
• The Alabama Supreme Court held that the 40% cap is not an absolute bar on all additional charges; costs not incident to confinement may be charged beyond 40%, and remanded for further proceedings. Merritt’s cross-appeal in case 1120264 was dismissed as untimely.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Corr., 74 So.3d 25 (Ala. 2011) (establishes framework for work-release and 40% cap)
• Alabama Dep’t of Corr. v. Merritt, 74 So.3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (early appellate reasoning on 40% cap and confinement costs)
• Crowe v. State ex rel. Patterson, 860 So.2d 363 (Ala.Civ. App. 2003) (work release as custodial confinement concept)
• Ex parte J.E., 1 So.3d 1002 (Ala. 2008) (preserves de novo standard for legal questions on appeal)
• Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Nielsen, 714 So.2d 293 (Ala. 1998) (plain language interpretation of statutes)