*1 den., cert. U.S. 79 S.Ct. 838,the L.Ed.2d Court said: “ plea there has guilty Where been a of separate crimes the claim of double upon jeopardy charges based dual ” waived.’ judgments and sentences are af- firmed. SIMMS, JJ.,
BRETT and concur. Fransein, Tulsa, plaintiff W. James in error. Gen., Derryberry, Atty. for de-
Larry
fendant in error. BUSSEY, Presiding Judge: SHATTUCK, Petitioner, Bruce Dunson, Gary hereinafter Andrew v. defendant, pleas of ferred to as entered GRIDER, Warden, State W. John Oklahoma guilty in District Court of Tulsa Coun- Respondent. Reformatory, ty, Robbery of Oklahoma to the offenses No. A-17016. Firearms, with After Former Conviction Appeals of Oklahoma. Criminal Court of Firearm, Aft- Felony, of a of a Possession Jan. Felony, er Former Conviction of Kill, After Former Shooting with Intent to Felony; punishment
Conviction concurrent, ten-year (3) fixed at three
was
sentences, said judgments and from
sentences, timely of Certiorari Writ perfected
been this Court. irregu any allege
The defendant does not pleas guilty, concerning
larities three
contends he was convicted the same arising out of
separate offenses
incident, contrary to the laws Oklahoma, and the Constitu State In America.
tion of the United States Okl.Cr.,
the recent of Bass v. case similar dealing P.2d with
proposition, we stated: “ defend- opinion that the are of the plea guilty waived unqualified
ant’s might have defendant objection the ” jeopardy.’ former
to the defense of cited, ap- Bass, supra, with we further Hornbeck
proval, People ex rel. the case of 689, 179 N.Y.S.2d Jackson, A.D.2d *2 Shattuck, pro
Bruce se. Gen., Atty. Larry for re- Derryberry, spondent.
SIMMS, Judge:
corpus
application for habeas
This is an
Shattuck,
re-
Bruce
hereinafter
wherein
con-
alleges that his
petitioner,
ferred to as
rights have been violated
stitutional
its con-
has broken
the State Oklahoma
cer-
petitioner
canceling
in
out
tract with
by
donations
tain credits for blood
prior
parole.
on
petitioner
his release
not state how
Although petitioner does
to his
prior
time he accrued
much blood
revocation of
before the
release and
violation,
substantially
parole
its
he has
an inmate
question
whether
raised the
.of
prior
his release
who contributes
time credits
on
entitled
viola-
prison
for a
is returned
he
relating to
The statute
tion
O.S.1968,
is 57
credits
time
§
part:
provides,
pertinent
in
in-
have no
“Every
shall
convict who
regulations of
the rules and
fractions of
prison
of the State recorded
or laws
his term
allowed for
against him shall be
in each
(2) months
deduction to two
***
years;
(2)
the first
two
And,
the deduction above
in addition to
for,
enti-
every
shall be
provided
convict
his sentence of
a deduction from
tled to
days’
every
(6)
six
days for
(2)
two
him;
each con-
by
performed
work
also,
de-
to all such
in addition
shall
vict
ductions,
a deduction of
entitled
days
(20)
pint
for each
twenty
Red Cross
to the American
he donates
hospital approved
agency
or to
purpose
the Warden.
such
**
*
parole who are
Inmates on
violat-
to the institution
turned
any deprived shall be
ors
the date
their release
up to
earned
however,
no con-
Provided,
to deduction
entitled
shall be
vict
provided
time as herein
guilty of misconduct
he has been
event
regula-
rules and
prison
violation
tions,
See,
Okl.Cr.,
Salisbury,
unless
relieved therefrom
In re
“The shall the Governor have narrow issue this before Court is: grant, favor- “any” after conviction and after Does the use of the word in the Act, by majority able a of supra, by recommendation embrace credits earned Board, commutation, pardons prisoner the said by a having reason of his donated paroles offenses, except and for all cases blood. impeachment, upon of conditions such authority Defendant cites no and this and with such restrictions and limitations any authority Court is unable find for may proper, as to such subject he deem the contention that blood become credits regulations prescribed by be law." may as theory vested on the of contract. [Emphasis added] 5, 57, Constitution, Article Oklahoma § treating subject parole, of as dis- the provides: uniformly ac-
tinguished pardon, from a “Every Legislature of the em- act shall cepted may statement of the law be found subject, but brace one which shall be 20b, 604, pages 605: at 67 Pardons § C.J.S. expressed clearly in its title.” grace, fa- parole “A a mere matter of is 57, 1968, 138, Title has but one sub- O.S. § not vor, prisoner is privilege, and by ject, earning to-wit: the of time credits right. of entitled thereto as a matter an inmate and includes both credit for Subject imposed to the limitations blood donated and time credits under statute, [emphasis question the added] Amendatory the same statute. The 1971 paroled is a prisoner whether shall be language Act contains the exact with ref- paroling for discretion of the the erence to forfeiture of time * * authority, *.” parolee. returned must, therefore, the conclude portion body of meaning of When parole language in the statute “Inmates on uncertain, may title of statute statute is of pa institution as who are returned to the Legislative in to determine be considered deprived shall be role violators provi tent in of this constitutional view up their re credits earned to the date of rel., Board of Education of sion. ex imposed parole” a limitation lease on is 259, Morley, City of 168 Okl. Tulsa upon by constitutionally sound parolee (1934). P.2d legislative enactment. 135, Bill Second The title Senate provided: O.S.1961, Title § Legislature, codi of the 31st Session “ * * * parole are re- Inmates on who O.S.1968, “Pro reads: fied as 57 § violat- turned to the institution Per Credits Deprivation viding for up earned ors shall retain the credits Parole Returned to Prison as Vio sons parole.” release on the date their Obviously, it [Emphasis lators”. added] [Emphasis added] the that a re the intent of was deprived parolee of credits which held, turned construing Court the 1961 This under the of that Act, earned parolee could be that a has been whose statute, they be for time or whether revoked does not lose his credits by the insertion emphasized is behavior, etc., blood. This parole, the earned before body the “any” the within of the word is earned entitled to all the lawful credits up law. to the date he was released purpose right. The obvious than “any” is defined
Generally,
word
amend his
encourage
wrongdoer to
many,
indefinite
or an
one out of
mean
ways
state of added
and relieve the
number,
full
“ev-
force
given
may
sponsibility
The state
care.
Dictionary, Re-
ery” or “all.” Black’s Law
subject
grace
under
offer such
Ed.,
page
4th
at
vised
may
most con-
as it
consider
conditions
“any”
specifically,
the word
More
purpose.
desired
accomplish
ducive to
judicially to
been defined
.
. has
“.
» nn
n
‘every’
and the use
mean ‘all’
Shilbury v.
imports
limitation.”
no
word
he had
contention
Petitioners
979, 284
Misc.2d
Supervisors,
Bd.
donating
the State
contracted with
at 129
N.Y.S.2d
*4
wholly with
is
for
time credits
blood
proposition of the
directly to the
Going
merit,
to donate
for
decision
out
the
“any”
a
within
the word
construction
petitioner,
personal
of the
decision
is a
statute,
City of
the court
in Hime v.
con
limits the
subject
the statute which
to
Galvestion,
(1967) stated:
268
543
S.W.2d
for
time
ditions under which
“Further,
judi-
‘any’
the
has been
word
will be
the term his sentence
shortening
or ‘ev-
cially
‘each’
mean:
construed
allowed.
constru-
‘all’;
particularly in
ery’ or
statutes,
equivalent
ing
‘any’
the word
is
there
opinion, and
are of the
and ‘all’.”
‘every’
force
to and has the
hold,
convict who donates
that
fore
prisoner’s good
that a
majority
penitentiary
rule is
the
prior to his release from
denied
may
be forfeited or
time allowance
time cred
is
parole,
not entitled
on
of the terms of his
prior
for his violation
to his
for the contribution
its
following ju
the
rule is followed in
subsequently
This
returned
he is
release when
v.
Rockholt
risdictions: Alabama:
penitentiary for
violation
the
337,
Ala.App.
(1961);
269
41
So.2d
132.
Corpus
accord-
of Habeas
is
The Writ
parte Borgfeldt, 75 Cal.
Ex
California:
ingly denied.
83,
Connecti
App.2d
(1946);
“Parole and my time is in strue the statute otherwise sovereign of grace as a opinion, powers rather separation violate the Court from provision restricts the which Legislature. province
invading the Error, McCOY, Edward Plaintiff in wisdom, Legislature, If the their reasons, to amend the public policy wish Oklahoma, The STATE of Defend vested, create irrevocable statute and ant in Error. inmate time credits for right in an No. A-16258. may be revoked blood donated not Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. the rules of a violation of Feb. so, penitentiary, they can do jurisdiction Court no Legislative authority.
invade the
BRETT, (concurs part, Judge part):
dissents in part
I concur in of this decision as
it general interpretation relates to
legislation; granted that a as a *5 grace the executive branch of and that
Government; there is not neces-
sarily a agreement contractual between an state,
«inmate pertains as it
giving of for time credits. How-
ever, I dissent the ultimate conclusions decision;
reached in this I and am not es-
pecially impressed by majority holdings states, they pertain other as to the revo-
cation of blood credits when an inmate’s
parole is revoked. I also concede that I jurisdiction
have been unable to find contrary
which has ruled majority to the herein; nonetheless,
view I believe giving
that the statutory blood—under be likened passage unto the —can
of time toward the prison of a fulfillment
sentence. I would hold that the time credit
granted for the giving of blood becomes
vested credit actually blood is inmate;
moved from an and that those credits,
credits should not be revocable though
even the inmate’s is subse-
quently revoked. provision allowing major available a
source for the donation of blood for use general public. The time credits al-
lowed served as an incentive facilitate supply; source of consequently, I be-
lieve public a matter of policy, if for no reason,
other that source should not be
jeopardized.