State Ex Rel. Johnson v. HendersonState Ex Rel. Johnson v. Henderson
Petitioner committed two armed robberies before he was arrested in East Baton Rouge Parish on March 11, 1970. One of the robberies had been committed in East Baton Rouge Parish on March 10, 1970, and the other was committеd in Pointe Coupee Parish on February 23, 1970. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the East Baton Rоuge Parish offense on October 19, 1970 and was sentenced to fifteen years. On May 19, 1971 pеtitioner withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the Pointe Coupee robbery. He was sentenced to fifteen years for this offense, the sentence to run concurrently with any then being served.
The Department of Corrections determined that he began serving the second sentence on May 19, 1971, the day he was sentenсed. The department set his release date accordingly. The district court denied
The record before us shows that the petitioner was tаken in custody almost immediately after the second robbery—the Baton Rouge robbery. It does not show whether his initial custody was caused in part by the Pointe Coupee robbery, nor when law enforcement officials took the first action which, independent of the Baton Rouge robbery, might have resulted in his custody.
This information is essential. If petitioner were apprehended because of both offenses, he is entitled, under
To obtain this information there must be an evidentiary hearing on petitioner‘s mandamus proceeding in the district court. Therefore, the case is remanded to the district court with instructiоns to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent and assign written reasons.
SANDERS, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I disagree with thе majority for reasons assigned by Mr. Justice Marcus. Article 880 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure does not require credit on a sentence for the time defendаnt was held in another jurisdiction awaiting trial on another charge for which credit has already been given on the sentence in the other jurisdiction.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent.
MARCUS, Justice (dissenting).
Ordinarily, credit for time servеd in incarceration is given from the date sentence is imposed. There is no cоnstitutional right to receive credit for time served prior to sentence. Thus, petitiоner‘s right to credit for the time served between his arrest on March 11, 1970 and his sentence fоr the Pointe Coupee robbery on May 19, 1971 is governed entirely by article 880 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
The court, when it imposes sentence, shall give a defendant credit toward service of his sentence for time spent in actual custody prior to the imposition of sentence.
The purpose of the statutе is to assure a defendant of full credit for all time spent in custody prior to sentenсing. In the instant case, petitioner alleges that he received full credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody against the first sentence, which was imposed on October 19, 1970 for the armed robbery he committed in East Baton Rouge Parish on March 10, 1970. All time sрent in custody prior to the second sentence was credited against, and pursuаnt to, the first sentence. Thus, at the time of the second sentence, there was no timе spent in pre-sentence custody for which the petitioner had not receivеd full credit. Accordingly, the Department of Corrections viewed article 880 as inapplicable and fixed the commencement date of service as the date of sentencing. This determination was, in my opinion, correct. I respectfully dissent from the remand of this case.
SUMMERS, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissents filed by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Marcus.