Originally written for the Colorado Springs Gazette
“This could result in the prison walls falling down for thousands of
inmates in Colorado,” that is how attorney David Lane described the class
action lawsuit filed on January 2, 2014 in Denver Federal Court on behalf of thousands of
Colorado inmates incarcerated longer than intended – some years longer.
The federal civil
rights suit comes out of a recent unpublished Colorado Court of Appeals ruling
that re-affirms the requirement for the Colorado Department of Correction
(CDOC) to apply both good time (15 days a month) and earned time (10 - 12 days a
month depending on statute) to the release date for inmates with a mandatory parole
date and would otherwise qualify for the time credit reduction.
According to CDOC
spokesman Roger Hudson, offenders are allowed earned time that is applied towards
an inmate’s release date and good time that is applied to an offender’s parole
eligibility date. Hudson highlights that
good time is not applied to an offender’s required release date, only the
parole eligibility date. The court opinion, written by Judge John Dailey
disagrees with the CDOC practice saying, “A person fitting under a mandatory
parole scheme, however, must be paroled upon reaching the parole date as
determined by reducing vested good time and earned time credits from the
person’s sentence.”
According to civil
rights attorney David Lane, the ruling means thousands of inmates have been
incarcerated for too long. The federal
suit filed by Lane asks the court for a preliminary injunction to require CDOC
to immediately recalculate every offender’s time computation and release all
inmates that have served their sentence with the time credit applied. The suit also claims that some parole board
decisions are based on an offender’s mandatory parole date and Lane is asking
that the parole board be required to reexamine parole decisions. After these
things are done, says Lane, there is still the question of CDOC financial
liability for the thousands of cumulative years taken from these offenders.
The appellate court
ruling came from Ankeney v. Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Corrections, Warden of the Fremont Correctional Facility, and Colorado Attorney
General. Randy Ankeney, a former
Colorado attorney, was sentenced to eight years for child abuse in January
2008. While incarcerated, he realized
that good time and earned time were not being applied to his and other inmates'
mandatory release dates as the law required.
According to Ankeney, he repeatedly notified prison authorities of the
time computation errors starting in 2010, but was never taken seriously.
When it was clear that
prison officials were not going to do anything to correct the mistake, Ankeney filed
his case in Fremont District Court in 2011 arguing that CDOC was not applying
the law correctly. Ankeney alleged that
his release date should have been November 2011, not December 2013 as the
prison had calculated. The district
court dismissed Ankeney’s case because of his inability to pay the required
filing fee and further ruled that he did not, “file a claim upon which relief
could be granted.”
After being refused
relief from the district court, Ankeney had only one option left, file an
appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals.
“Appeals are long-shots as it is,” said Ankeney, “they are nearly
impossible to do as an offender from prison; the deck is stacked against you.”
The confusion in time
computation comes from whether an offender is sentenced to discretionary parole
or mandatory parole. The Colorado
criminal code reinstituted the mandatory parole scheme in July 1993, but CDOC
has been applying the rules for discretionary parole across all sentences. The appellate court opinion points out that,
“The district court erred,” in its ruling, “DOC has a clear duty to apply,” the
time credits Ankeney earned. The
appellate court opinion, however, only applies to offenders with a mandatory
parole date, not discretionary parole or indeterminate sentences.
According to Ankeney,
the appellate court’s opinion was unpublished because it was already, “well
settled law,” and should have been known to CDOC. “This is the law of the land now,” said
Ankeney.
Lane, commented, “This
ruling could have an immediate impact on offenders. I believe we have a very strong case here.”
“The excuse from the
Department of Corrections is that the statutes are just really
complicated. They’re not,” said
Ankeney. “The only confusion comes from
their misguided attempts to avoid doing what the legislature intended.”
Lane contacted the
State Attorney General’s Office to notify them of the pending class action suit
and asked if there was any reason the Attorney General could give for not
filing the suit. According to Lane, the Attorney
General’s office said they could not find a reason why the suit should not be
filed other than the law was written in a confusing manner. Laura Morales, spokeswoman for the Attorney
General’s Office said, “This matter is still in litigation on remand. As a result, we cannot comment on pending
litigation.”
After receiving all the
time credits required by law, Ankeney was released from CDOC in August 2013,
nearly two years late. “That is time you
just never get back,” said Ankeney, “you can’t understand what that means, it
doesn’t have a price tag, it is two years of my life I will never see again.”
No comments:
Post a Comment