Judges: MARK PRYOR, Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/24/2000
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Mr. Larry Norris, Director Arkansas Department of Correction P.O. Box 8707 Pine Bluff, AR 71611-8707
Dear Mr. Norris:
You have requested an Attorney General opinion concerning the effect of Act 1035 of 1999 upon certain other provisions of law.
More specifically, you have asked:
Did Act 1035 negate the 70% requirement of A.C.A. §
It is my opinion, as explained more fully below, that Act 1035 of 1999 did not have the effect of negating the 70% requirement of A.C.A. §
Before discussing the basis for my conclusion I will set forth the language of the provisions that are pertinent to your question.
A.C.A. §
Notwithstanding any law allowing the award of meritorious good time or any other law to the contrary, any person who is found guilty of or who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to murder in the first degree, §
5-10-102 , kidnapping, Class Y felony, §5-11-102 , aggravated robbery, §5-12-103 , rape, §5-14-103 , causing a catastrophe, §5-38-202 (a), manufacture of methamphetamine, §5-64-401 (a)(1)(1), or possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, §5-64-403 (c)(5) shall not, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, be eligible for parole or community punishment transfer until the person serves seventy percent (70%) of the term of imprisonment, including a sentence prescribed under §5-4-501 , to which the person is sentenced.
A.C.A. §
Act 1035 of 1999 amended the provisions of A.C.A. §
Persons who commit the following felonies on or after January 1, 1994, shall be eligible to be considered for discretionary transfer to the Department of Community Punishment by the Post Prison Transfer Board after having served one-third (1/3) or one-half (1/2), with credit for meritorious good time, of their sentences, depending on the seriousness determination made by the Arkansas Sentencing Commission, or one-half (1/2), with credit for meritorious good time, of the time to which their sentences are commuted by executive clemency:
(A) Any homicide, §§
(B) Sexual abuse in the first degree, §
(C) Battery in the first degree, §
(D) Domestic battering in the first degree, §
(E) The following Class Y felonies:
(i) Kidnapping, §
(ii) Rape, §
(iii) Aggravated robbery, §
(iv) Causing a catastrophe, §
(F) Engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, §
(G) Simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, §
A.C.A. §
Your question arises out of the fact that the two above-quoted statutes appear to conflict with one another. They list some of the same offenses, but provide for different treatment of these offenses. More specifically, the following offenses appear to be covered by both statutes: first degree murder, kidnapping (Class Y), aggravated robbery, rape, and causing a catastrophe.
Under A.C.A. §
The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that when two statutes address the same topic, they must, if possible, be interpreted in such a way that both provisions will remain viable. See, e.g., Kansas City Southern Ry.Co. v. Pledger,
I find that it is possible to interpret A.C.A. §
For these reasons, I conclude that the 70% requirement of A.C.A. §
Assistant Attorney General Suzanne Antley prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
MARK PRYOR Attorney General
MP:SA/cyh