Personal Restraint Petition of Waldo Emerson Waldron-Ramsey ( 2015 )

FILED
JULY 28, 2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: )
) No. 32172-0-111
)
WALDO EMERSON WALDRON­ )
RAMSEY, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Petitioner. )
)
SIDDOWAY, C.J. - Waldo Emerson Waldron-Ramsey is currently in the custody
of the Department of Corrections (DOC) serving a sentence for his 1989 Spokane County
conviction of first degree murder. He filed this personal restraint petition challenging the
DOC's decision to rescind previously-awarded presentence early release credit for jail
time served in New York while fighting extradition to Spokane County to face the
murder charge. He contends the DOC's denial of the early release credits for time served
solely on the Spokane County murder cause--even though in a New York jail-violates
equal protection. l Because the DOC has now determined Mr. Waldron-Ramsey is
1 Upon determination that Mr. Waldron-Ramsey is indigent and that his petition
raised non-frivolous issues, the Chief Judge entered an order granting his request for
appointed counsel and referring the petition to a panel ofjudges. RAP 16.l1(b).
No. 32172-0-III
PRP o/Waldron-Ramsey
entitled to the disputed credits and has correctly calculated his new prison early release
date, we dismiss the petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
When Mr. Waldron-Ramsey committed his crime in 1985, there was no statutory
authorization for county jails to award good time credit for prison-bound offenders.
Rather, it was then up to the DOC to develop and promulgate procedures by which the
terms of a sentence may be reduced by earned early release time for good behavior and
good performance, as determined by the DOC. See former RCW 9.94A.150(1) (1985).
In 1990, the Washington Supreme Court held in In re Mota, that equal protection
principles require that indigent prisoners who cannot make bail prior to trial and
sentencing are entitled to receive early release credit for the time period spent in county
jail awaiting sentencing. In re Mota, 114 Wn.2d 465,473,788 P.2d 538 (1990). As of
2010, in light of Mota, the DOC had awarded Mr. Waldron-Ramsey 666 days ofjail early
release credit based on 1331 days served in county jail in New York and Spokane
County. In 2013, however, the DOC audited Mr. Waldron-Ramsey's sentence structure
and adjusted his jail early release time downward from 666 to 554 days, in effect
revoking 112 days of New York early release credit and extending his prison early
release date. When the DOC refused to restore those credits, Mr. Waldron-Ramsey filed
this petition alleging violation of his equal protection rights under Mota.
2
No. 32172-0-III
PRP of Waldron-Ramsey
DISCUSSION
In its initial and supplemental responses to Mr. Waldron-Ramsey's petition, the
DOC took the position that he was entitled to (and was in fact awarded) day-for-day
credit for jail time served in New York while fighting extradition, but not early release
credit because he was in a jail that did not award those credits. But subsequently,
effective January 12,2015, the DOC instituted a new early release policy that allows
inmates to receive presentence early release credits for time spent fighting extradition.
The policy states:
Offenders serving presentence time in another jurisdiction (e.g. juvenile
detention center, another state/jurisdiction even if fighting extradition, etc.)
will receive jail credit if serving solely on the Washington State charge.
The Department will request documentation from the other jurisdiction of
dates of incarceration and any early release time lost. The Department will
calculate ERT for the presentence time spent in the facility at the rate
earned in the Department.
Dep't of Corrections Policy Directive 350.100(V)(C) (Jan. 12,2015).
In light of this policy, the DOC has determined Mr. Waldron-Ramsey is entitled to
the early release credits attributable to his New York jail time. The DOC has re-credited
him so that his county jail early release credits for New York and Spokane County now
total 665 days. This renders his equal protection arguments moot, and we decline to
address that issue because it is unlikely to recur under the DOC's new policy. See
Sorenson v. City ofBe llingham , 80 Wn.2d 547,558,496 P.2d 512 (1972) (courts
generally will not review a moot issue, but may do so if it involves matters of continuing
3
No. 32172-0-111
PRP of Waldron-Ramsey
and substantial public interest).
Still in question, however, is whether the DOC correctly calculated Mr. Waldron­
Ramsey's new prison early release date of August 6, 2018, after re-crediting him with the
New York early release time. He contends he is entitled to 666 days ofjail early release
time, instead of the 665 days now awarded by the DOC.
Since the calculation is a decision for which Mr. Waldron-Ramsey has had no
prior opportunity for judicial review, he must show that he is under restraint and the
restraint is unlawful. In re Pers. Restraint ofCas haw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 148-49, 866 P.2d
8 (1994); RAP 16.4(a), (c). Mr. Waldron-Ramsey remains under the restraint of his
prison sentence, but to obtain relief he must show either a constitutional violation or a
violation of state law. Id. at 148; RAP 16.4(c)(2), (6). Given that the constitutional equal
protection issue is resolved, the question is whether the DOC's early release date
calculation comports with state law-in this case Sentencing Reform Act provisions that
govern early release from prison.
Mr. Waldron-Ramsey committed his crime on October 21, 1985. He is thus
eligible to earn aggregate earned release time not to exceed one-third of the total
sentence. See former RCW 9.94A.150(1), recodified as RCW 9.94A.729(3)(e). When
an inmate's early release percentage is one-third of the total sentence, the jail early
release time equals one-third of the entire jail sentence and the period of incarceration is
two-thirds. This means that jail early release time is 50 percent ofjail time served (i.e.,
4
No. 32172-0-111
PRP 0/ Waldron-Ramsey
one-third is 50 percent of two-thirds). See In re Pers. Restraint o/Williams, 121 Wn.2d
655,658-59, 853 P.2d 444 (1993). It is undisputed that Mr. Waldron-Ramsey served a
total of 1331 days of presentence county jail time-II 08 days in the Spokane County Jail
and 223 days in the New York jail. He thus contends he is entitled to the 666 days ofjail
early release credit previously awarded.
But under the above formula, Mr. Waldron-Ramsey's early release time is half of
1331 days or 665.5 days, which the DOC has properly rounded down to 665 days so as to
not exceed the statutory maximum aggregate of one-third of the total sentence allowed
under RCW 9.94A.729(3)(e). The DOC was thus mistaken when it previously awarded
him 666 days of credit. See In re Pers. Restraint o/Fogle, 128 Wn.2d 56, 61, 904 P.2d
722 (1995) (inmates do not have a statutorily created right to a specific method of
calculating early release credits).
Mr. Waldron-Ramsey's sentence for the murder is 575 months, or 17,501 days in
length. See Second Supplemental Response of the Department of Corrections, Exhibit
11. The DOC has credited him with 1331 days ofjail time served and 665 days ofjail
early release credit, for a total of 1996 days ofjail credits. Id. Subtracting that total from
the 17,501-day sentence leaves 15,505 days to serve in DOC custody. If Mr. Waldron-
Ramsey were to receive all of his DOC early release credits, his time to serve would be
two-thirds of 15,505 or 10,336.67 days. He has thus far lost 145 days of good conduct
time and has missed earning 157.14 days of earned time. Id. Adding those days to the
5
No. 32172-0-111
PRP of Waldron-Ramsey
10,336.67 days left to serve results in 10,638.81 days-rounded up to 10,639 days left to
serve in the DOC. Adding 10,639 days to Mr. Waldron-Ramsey's DOC start time of
June 20, 1989, results in an early release date of August 6, 2018. Id. This correctly-
calculated early release date accounts for the New York early release time that the DOC
has fully re-credited to Mr. Waldron-Ramsey.
In light of the DOC's re-crediting Mr. Waldron-Ramsey with his New York
earned early release time and its correct calculation of his earned early release date, all
available relief has been provided to him and he is not under unlawful restraint. RAP
16.4(c).
Petition dismissed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
FearIng, J.
6