Larry Robinson 722728 v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Warden Travis Day, Assistant Warden, Karla Wheat & Ms. Carolyn Thomas ( 2023 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2023 CA 0600
LARRY ROBINSON
VERSUS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, WARDEN
TRAVIS DAY, ASSISTANT WARDEN, KARLA WHEAT AND MS.
CAROLYN THOMAS
Judgment Rendered: NOV 0 9 2023
On appeal from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Docket Number C723455
Honorable Trudy M. White, Judge Presiding
Larry Robinson Plaintiff/Appellant
Angie, LA In Proper Person
Debra A. Rutledge Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.
GUIDRY, C.J.
Larry Robinson, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections (" the Department"), appeals a judgment of the
district court dismissing his petition for judicial review. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2017, the petitioner herein, Robinson, entered a plea of guilty to La. R.S.
14: 42. 1, forcible rape, and was sentenced to serve a period of 35 years at hard
labor with two years of said sentence " served without benefits of probation, parole
or suspension of sentence." Thereafter, on September 14, 2022, Robinson filed a
grievance, Administrative Remedy Procedure # RCC -2022- 172. In his complaint,
Robinson challenged the Department' s decision regarding his parole eligibility
date. Robinson requested that his master prison record " reflect the terms of his
plea bargain," which, according to Robinson, would make him eligible for parole
after serving the first two years of his sentence.
After being denied the relief requested at the first and second steps,
Robinson sought judicial review of the Department' s decision in the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court. The commissioner assigned to review the petition
concluded that the parole eligibility date determined by the Department was
correct. The commissioner recommended that Robinson' s petition be dismissed.
The district court, thereafter, rendered a judgment in favor of the Department,
dismissing Robinson' s petition for judicial review with prejudice. Robinson now
appeals and asserts that the district court erred in " not considering the phrasing of
the court' s sentencing minutes as proof of a binding contract between the State and
the Plaintiff."
2
DISCUSSION
As provided for in the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Procedure Act,
an offender aggrieved by an adverse decision rendered pursuant to any
administrative remedy procedure can institute proceedings for judicial review by
filing a petition for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. La.
R.S. 15: 1177. The review shall be confined to the record and shall be limited to
the issues presented in the petition for review and the administrative remedy
request filed at the agency level. La. R. S. 15: 1177( A)(5). The court may reverse
or modify the agency decision " only if substantial rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced" because the administrative decisions or findings are: ( 1) in violation of
constitutional or statutory provisions; ( 2) in excess of the statutory authority of the
agency; ( 3) made upon unlawful procedure; ( 4) affected by other error of law; ( 5)
arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion; or ( 6) manifestly
erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole
record. La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)( 9). On review of the district court' s judgment in a
suit for judicial review under La. R.S. 15: 1177, no deference is owed by the court
of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no
deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to the factual findings or legal
conclusions of the court of appeal. Grimes v. Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections, 20- 0089, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11112120), 316 So. 3d 35,
im
At the time the offense herein was committed, La. R.S. 14: 42. 1 provided in
part: " At least two years of the sentence imposed shall be without benefit of
probation, parole, or suspension of sentence." Accordingly, at the time of
Robinson' s sentencing, and as reflected in the transcript, the court stated,
Having entered a plea of guilty to R.S. 14:42. 1 FORCIBLE RAPE, [ the] Court
at this time sentences the defendant to serve a period of THIRTY-FIVE ( 35)
3
YEARS at hard labor ... TWO (2) YEARS of said sentence is to be served without
benefits of probation, parole or suspension of sentence." Because the district court
sentenced Robinson to two years without the benefit of probation, parole, or the
suspension of his sentence, Robinson contends that he should be eligible for parole
once he has served two years of his sentence. What Robinson fails to recognize,
however, is that our courts have distinguished between parole eligibility and
eligibility for parole consideration. The two are distinct and different matters.
Parole eligibility is determined by the sentence.
Eligibility for parole
consideration, however, is dependent upon meeting certain criteria and conditions
specified by statute. See Bosworth v. Whitle , 627 So. 2d 629, 631 ( La. 1993). It
is clear that an inmate who has parole eligibility set forth under his sentence may
not be eligible for parole consideration under statutory law. See Lay v. Louisiana
Department of Correction- Stalder ex rel. leyoub, 98- 0592, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
4/ 1/ 99), 734 So. 2d 782, 785, writ denied 99- 1173 ( La. 9/ 17/ 99), 747 So. 2d 1102.
The Department determines parole eligibility pursuant to the directives of La. R.S.
15: 574. 4. See Holmes v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
11- 2221, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/$/ 12), 93 So. 3d 761, 764, writ denied, 12- 1788
La. 12/ 14/ 12), 104 So. 3d 436; see also State v. Simmons, 20- 0695, p. 5 ( La. App.
1st Cir. 6/ 4/ 21), 327 So. 3d 542, 545 n.5. ( observing that in determining parole
eligibility dates, the Department looks to the applicable statutory criteria set out in
La. R.S. 15: 574.4, and administers these standards and criteria by applying them,
as well as other relevant statutes and interpretative jurisprudence, to determine
whether or not a particular inmate is parole eligible, i.e., eligible for parole
consideration by the board).
Contrary to Robinson' s contentions, nothing about his imposed sentence
establishes his eligibility for parole consideration. Such a determination is the sole
function of the Department and stems from La. R.S. 15: 574. 4 rather than the
4
forcible rape statute. As expressed by the commissioner, Robinson failed to offer
any evidence that he became eligible for parole consideration after serving only the
first two years of his sentence. We find no error in the district court' s ruling. The
Department' s determination regarding the petitioner' s parole eligibility date was
neither arbitrary or capricious, nor in violation of any constitutional or statutory
provision.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed.
All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff/appellant, Larry
Robinson.
AFFIRMED.
5