Ky Parole Violators

In , a jury convicted Turner of murder; he was sentenced to ninety-nine years' imprisonment. On January…. The Board denied parole and ordered a forty-eight month deferment. Brown filed a petition for declaratory….

State Parole Boards Use Software to Decide Which Inmates to Release

Back to Results. Download Print Get alerts. Statutes, codes, and regulations. Kentucky Revised Statutes. Section All paroles shall issue upon order of the board duly adopted. As soon as practicable after his or her admission to an adult state penal or correctional institution or county jail if he or she is a sentenced felon, and at such intervals thereafter as it may determine, the Department of Corrections shall obtain all pertinent information regarding each prisoner, except those not eligible for parole.

The information shall include the results of his or her most recent risk and needs assessment, his or her criminal record, his or her conduct, employment, and the reports of physical and mental examinations that have been made. The Department of Corrections shall furnish the circumstances of his or her offense, the results of his or her most recent risk and needs assessment, and his or her previous social history to the board.

Kentucky murder suspect mistakenly released from jail

The Department of Corrections shall prepare a report on any information it obtains. It shall be the duty of the Department of Corrections to supplement this report with any material the board may request and submit the report to the board.

The board in its discretion may hold interviews and hearings for prisoners convicted of Class C felonies not included within the definition of "violent offender" in KRS The board in its discretion may request the parole board of another state confining prisoners pursuant to KRS A parole shall be ordered only for the best interest of society and not as an award of clemency, and it shall not be considered a reduction of sentence or pardon. A prisoner shall be placed on parole only when arrangements have been made for his or her proper employment or for his or her maintenance and care, and when the board believes he or she is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law abiding citizen.

Notwithstanding any statute to the contrary, including KRS Such parole shall not constitute a relinquishment of jurisdiction over the prisoner, and the board in all cases expressly reserves the right to return the prisoner to confinement in a correctional institution of the Commonwealth if the prisoner violates the terms of his or her parole. Regulations governing the eligibility of prisoners for parole shall be in accordance with professionally accepted ideas of correction and reform and may utilize in part objective, performance-based criteria and risk and needs assessment information; however, nothing herein contained shall preclude the board from utilizing its present regulations in conjunction with other factors involved that would relate to the inmate's needs and the safety of the public.

Notice to the Commonwealth's attorney shall be by mail, fax, or electronic means at the discretion of the board, and shall be in a manner that ensures receipt at the Commonwealth attorney's business office. Notices received by chiefs of police and sheriffs shall be posted in a conspicuous location where police employed by the department may see it. Notices shall be posted in a manner and at a time that will allow officers to make comment thereon to the Parole Board.

Applying for parole | Adult Parole Board

Gaddis, S. As this Court is unwilling to interpret the statute in a manner which would indeed lead to an absurd result, we affirm for the reasons set forth herein below.

  • how do i obtain drunk driving records in california.
  • Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney?
  • Ky Parole Board.
  • Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible.
  • brown county mn public criminal records.

In reviewing the statute we note, under the literal interpretation argued by Hill, that a parolee who is charged with a new felony while out on parole might undergo a parole violation proceeding yielding different, if not conflicting, results depending on the grounds used for revocation. The anomaly presented by a literal interpretation of the statute would occur when comparing two parolees, both of whom have new felony convictions but one has additional potential parole violations while the other has no other potential violations.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Consider the situation where a parolee has, as his only potential violation, a new felony charge and the ultimate conviction thereon serves as the sole basis for the parole violation and, thus, the parolee does not receive credit for time spent on parole. In contrast, consider a parolee who has multiple potential violations, one of which is a new felony of which he is ultimately convicted and, by mere happenstance, is revoked on a violation other than the new felony conviction and, thus, does receive credit for time spent on parole.

Our legislature, in its wisdom, has sought to achieve a perfect result in a less than perfect world. In enacting this bill into law, the legislature surely did not intent to create a windfall for a repeat felon by allowing a parolee who has numerous violations, and one so serious as a new felony, to receive credit for time on parole if the violation for which he is ultimately returned to prison is not the new felony conviction itself.

Accordingly, it is our opinion that the intent of this statute was clearly to reward those parolees who maintained, in a general sense, law-abiding behavior while serving on parole. Conversely, it was also obviously intended by the legislature that those parolees who could not maintain a respect for the laws of this Commonwealth be punished appropriately along the guidelines of their original sentence s , as evidenced by an exception to the credit for violators with a new felony conviction or convictions. A literal interpretation of this exception would lead to situations like the matter sub judice, where a lifelong perpetual criminal is receiving credit for time spent while out on the streets, even when committing new felonies and abusing all aspects of our justice system.

Accordingly, we must agree with the DOC that a literal interpretation goes against both the spirit and intent of the law, as well as against the general well-being and safety of the Commonwealth. We simply cannot believe that the legislature intended the absurd result which would follow from a literal interpretation of the statute asserted by Hill.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we reject Hill's argument and find that he is not entitled to credit against his sentence for time spent while on parole. Therefore, we hereby affirm the circuit court's order on the appeals taken from case numbers CI and CI Having so found, we now address the appeal taken from case number CI Hill asserts entitlement to meritorious good time credit pursuant to CPP KRS An inmate may, at the discretion of the commissioner, be allowed a deduction from a sentence not to exceed five 5 days per month for performing exceptionally meritorious service or performing duties of outstanding importance in connection with institutional operations and programs.

The allowance shall be an addition to commutation of time for good conduct and under the same terms and conditions and without regard to length of sentence. In October of , Hill filed a petition for declaration of rights asserting that he was denied due process of law when the DOC failed to consider and timely act upon his eligibility for meritorious good time credit totaling days. Hill argues that good time credit accumulated prior to his release from prison in was not awarded.

Hill requested credit for the accumulated good time upon his return to prison for parole violation in The request was denied by the DOC, reminding Hill that good time was a privilege and not a right. In reviewing this matter, the court below agreed with each of the Commonwealth's arguments on this issue and dismissed Hill's petition accordingly. Having reviewed the applicable law, we are in agreement with the circuit court, and therefore affirm.

The law in this Commonwealth as it pertains to awards of meritorious good time is clear. Such awards are entirely discretionary and inmates possess no automatic entitlement to them. See Anderson v. Parker, S. Further, while it is true that an individual is entitled to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment before his life or property can be taken from him, an inmate making such a claim must demonstrate that he was deprived of a protected liberty or property interest by arbitrary governmental action.

See Williams v. Bass, 63 F.

Stay up to date with the latest on the law!

It is the well-established law of this Commonwealth that an inmate has no liberty interest in the receipt of meritorious good time under KRS Chandler, S. In the matter sub judice, the DOC had the discretion whether to award good time to Hill. The DOC exercised that discretion appropriately, particularly in light of Hill's successful escape during the time that he was being considered for a good time award.

Stay up to date with the latest on the law!

We do not find that the DOC in any way abused its discretion in declining to make such an award. Regardless, and with respect to Hill's assertions that he was not considered for meritorious good time at all between and , and again in , we find that the statute of limitations set forth in KRS Clearly, under the law of this Commonwealth, an action for declaration of rights alleging a violation of constitutional rights is subject to the one-year statute of limitations set forth in KRS See Million v.

Raymer, S.

  1. how to find a websites ip!
  2. free criminal record search in canada?
  3. free marriage records shreveport la?
  4. texas government contact for background checks!
  5. white pages in south bend indiana.
  6. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 439.340!
  8. As in the matter sub judice, Raymer was a Kentucky prison inmate who filed a declaratory judgment action pursuant to KRS Chapter , alleging that correctional officers had denied him due process of law. In reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations was applicable to Raymer's claim.

    Accordingly, even if we had not found meritorious good time awards to be discretionary, we would nevertheless affirm the circuit court's finding that Hill's claims in this regard are barred by the aforementioned limitations statute.

    • Eight Keys to Mercy:.
    • find address by phone number pickering.
    • How to shorten excessive prison sentences;
    • Clay County murderer will serve out life sentence.
    • Main navigation;
    • sex offenders in maple heights ohio?

    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we hereby affirm the December 12, , order of the Franklin Circuit Court, the Honorable Thomas D.