State ex rel. James v. StampsState ex rel. James v. Stamps
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Morgan
Willie James, hereinafter referred to as Relator, was arrested on December 25,1975, in St. Louis on charges arising out of a shooting incident. Being charged with Assault With Intent To Do Great Bodily Harm Without Malice (
On August 26,1976, Relator initiated this habeas corpus proceeding. A writ issued directing Relator’s release on his own recognizance pending disposition and the cause has now been briefed and submitted.
Relator relies on two statutory provisions. First, that he has served more than three-fourths of his sentence in an orderly and peaceable manner and is entitled to discharge under
It is agreed: (1) that the sentence was for 300 days; (2) that on his release on August 26, 1976, Relator had been confined for 249 days (238 of which were accumulated prior to the plea and sentence); and (3) that Relator was entitled to discharge, after having served 225 days, if either “three-fourths” statute was available to him.
An initial question involves § 546.-615, RSMo Supp.1975, which, in part, provides that: “A person convicted of a felony in this state shall receive as credit toward service of the sentence imposed all time spent by him in prison or jail awaiting trial *355and pending transfer to the division of corrections.” Any doubt such credit applies to a jail sentence has been removed in Spencer v. Basinger, Sheriff of Cole County, Missouri, 562 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. banc 1978) (handed down with this case) wherein this court said that: “The issue concerning a felon’s entitlement to jail time accumulated before judgment, when sentenced to confinement other than in custody of the division of corrections, was answered in In Re Turley, 496 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.App.1973). There the court of appeals held that a convicted felon sentenced to a term in the St. Louis City Workhouse must be given credit against such sentence for time in City Jail prior to trial. The ruling of the court of appeals and its interpretation of § 546.615 [footnote quoting statute omitted] is approved and given application here. In apparent disregard of the holding in Turley, respondent contends the statutory clause ‘both awaiting trial and pending transfer to the division of corrections’ (emphasis ours) in subsection (1) implies that jail time credit is mandatory only in cases ‘where defendant is sentenced to a term in an institution under the control of the division of corrections’ and when time is ‘spent by him in prison or jail both awaiting trial and pending transfer.’ Respondent insists if the legislature had intended otherwise it would have employed the disjunctive ‘or’ instead of the conjunctive ‘and’. Similar arguments were rejected by the court in Tur-ley.” Further reasons given by this court for so holding need not be repeated here.
Relator suggests a contrary interpretation of the statute by contending that it is concerned with three-fourths time being given those who serve in an “orderly and peaceable manner” much more than the place of confinement. Further argument is made that: “Equal protection of the law also mandates that felons confined in the St. Louis Medium Security Institution be entitled to the same rights and benefits which accrue to a similarly situated defendant serving a sentence on the same charge in the Missouri Department of Corrections * * *. Placing additional requirements on a defendant sentenced to another institution for the same crime would be a denial of equal protection of the law since a defendant has no control over the sentence imposed by the Court.”
We agree with the latter argument and find no reason to resolve whether or not Relator’s interpretation of
Crimes comparable to that for which Relator was sentenced are often referred to as “graduated” felonies, i. e., the punishment may include confinement in either a county (St. Louis) jail or a designated institution of the state. Had Relator been confined in a state institution the three-fourths rule clearly would have applied. Furthermore, the record presented reflects that the Department of Corrections would have applied the three-fourths rule to all days served in *356jail after initial arrest and confinement. Thus, there seems to be no logical reason or rational basis for distinguishing between a “day” served in jail prior to sentence to a state institution and a “day” served in jail prior to sentence to the St. Louis Medium Security Institution by reason of the same crime. No compelling state reason to hold otherwise has been suggested. By so concluding, we do agree in effect with Relator’s interpretation of
We do note, but need not discuss in detail, McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973), wherein the United States Supreme Court upheld a statute of New York distinguishing between good-time credit for jail time and that in prison reference eligibility for parole. An equal protection claim was rejected for the reason prison confinement, in contrast to that in jail, afforded officials an adequate opportunity to evaluate a prisoner’s conduct and potential as a parolee. In the instant case, encouragement of “good conduct” is the objective and there is no legitimate reason for rewarding only a portion of those felons who comply. Fairness alone demands as much.
Relator’s second point reference his alleged right to three-fourths time under
Relator should have been and hereby is credited with having served more than 225 days, which Respondent agrees were served in an orderly and peaceable manner.
Having served his sentence as provided by law, Relator is ordered discharged and the obligations of his bond are released and for naught held.
BARDGETT, HENLEY, FINCH, DON-NELLY, and SEILER, JJ., and FLANI-GAN, Special Justice, concur. RENDLEN, J., not sitting.
Notes
. Precedent abounds, however, for a liberal construction of “good time” statutes. “Where the statute is capable of two constructions, that construction should be adopted which would entitle the prisoner to his discharge at the earliest time.” 72 C.J.S. Prisoners § 21, at 887 (1951). In Anthony v. Kaiser, 350 Mo. 748, 169 S.W.2d 47 (banc 1943), this court stated that: “Penal and criminal statutes . . are generally ‘construed strictly as to those portions which are against defendants, but liberally construed in those which are in their favor — that is, for their ease and exemption when doubts arise concerning their interpretation, such doubts are to weigh only in favor of the accused.’ ” Citing State v. Taylor, 345 Mo. 325, 133 S.W.2d 336, 341 (1939).