Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )

The Attorney ,General of Texas JIM MATTOX May I,, 1985 Attorney General OVERRULES IN PART MW-382 Supreme Cowl Building Mr. R. K. Procunier opinion No. m-314 P. 0. Box 12548 Director Austin, TX. 78711. 2549 Texas Department of Corrections Re: Whether article 6184f, 512/475-2591 P. 0. Box 99 V.T.C.S.. prohibits classifica- Telex 910/874-1367 Teleco~ler 512l475026S Huntsville, Texas 77340 tion of an inmate as a trusty for the purpose of article 6181-1, V.T.C.S. 714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dallas, TX. 752024506 Dear Mr. Procunier: ZlU742-SQ44 You have asked ahether article 6184f, V.T.C.S.. 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 El Paso, TX. 789052793 prohibits the Texas Department of Corrections from 91~533.3464 classifyin@,an inmate returned due to revocation of his parc'leor mandatory supervision as 'trusty' 1001 Texas, Suite 700 for the putpose of earning good conduct pursuant Houston, TX. 77002-3111 to article 6181-1, section 3(a)(3), V.T.C.S. 713/223-5SSS You note your agency '8 "strongly held opinion that it does not, but because of Texas Att,xney General Opinion MW-382 (1981)" you feel 806 Broadway, Suite312 Lubbock, TX. 7Q401-3479 compelled to make th:is opinion request. The second question dealt 80617476238 with in MU-382 asked the following: Does the Tmas Department of Corrections have the 4309 N. Tenth. Suite B discretion to classify an inmate who is a parole McAllen, TX. 79501-1885 5121882-4547 violator or mandatory supervision returnee as a state appmved trusty. . . ? 200 Ma,” Plan, suite 400 The opinion based i&e answer to this question on article 6184f, San Antonio. TX. 78205.2797 V.T.C.S., which provjdes as follows: 5121225-4191 Whenever a convict violates his trust or his An Equal Opportunltyl conduct is ,such that he makes himself objection- Affirmative Action Employer able to tht?citizens of the comunity in which he is located,,and complaint is made to the Board of Prison Coamissioners, or to any officer having charge of said convict by two or more good and reliable cl.t:izens, and it is found upon investiga- tion by the Prison Commission that the complaint is well founded, such convict shall not thereafter be eligible!to appointment as a trusty for twelve p. 1441 Mr. R. K. Procunier - Page 2 (JM-314) months. It shall be the duty of the Prison Commissioners to sze that the warden and farm managers faithfully carry out the provisions of this Act. (Footnote omitted). Relying on this provision, Attorney General Opinion MW-382 concluded that the Texas Board of Corrections does not have the discretion to class,l:lyan inmate who is a parole violator or mandatcry supervision returnee as a state approved trusty until at least twelve months after the inmate's :returnto the Texas Department of Corrections. On reconsideration of this question, we have determined that article 6184f, V.T.C.S., does not address violations of parole or mandatory supervision conditions. Article 6184f was enactec,in 1925 as section 6 of a bill entitled "An Act to regulate and more definitely prescribe the mauner of handling trusties around the penitentiaries and penitentiary farms. . . .u Acts 1925, 317th Leg., ch. 19, 96, at 46-7. The prohibition by that section 6, which has remained unchanged as article 6184f, of an inmate being classified as a trusty for twelve months after violating "his trust" by objectionable conduct obviously pertained to the inmate's blzhavior outside the prison while in a "trusty" status. It is appc.rent that the only purpose of article 6184f was to prevent the prison from allowing an inmate returned to the prison for misbehavior while outside the prison from being appointed a "trusty" with freedom to be unguarded outside the prison. The legislature did not winIt an inmate who was returned for objectionable conduct while in the community in a "trusty" status to be allowed back in the communLl:yas a "trusty" for at least one year. However, article 6184f does not have any bearing on an inmate's ability to earn good conduct t:Lme. Article 6184f should therefore be limited to the evil it was intended to remedy: prohibiting certain inmates from being allowed to be at large in the community for a certain period of time. We therefore conclude that the answer to the second question in NW-382 was incorrect insofar as it purported to proscribe prospective classi:~ication of a parole or mandatory supervision returnee as a trus,ty. We believe that article 6181-l. V.T.C.S., controls the provision of good conduct time to irnates. Section 2 of article 6181-1, V.T.C.S., requires the department to classify all inmates upon arrival and to reclassify them as warranted. Section 3(a) establishes the amount of good conduct time atxrued by inmates in the following three classifications: Class I, Cle.ssII, and trusty. No good conduct time p. 1442 Mr. R. K. Pracunier - Page 3 (JM-314) accrues while an inmate is a C,lassIII inmate or is on parole or under mandatory supervision. V.T.C.S. art. 6181-1, )3(b). Section 4 of article 6181-1, provides as fc,llows: Upon revocation of parole or mandatory super- vision, the inmate . . . upon return to the department may accrue new good conduct time for subsequent time served in the department. (Emphasis added). Thus, the legislature has exllresslyprovided that an inmate released on parole or mandatory supervj.sionwho has been thereafter returned to the Texas Department of Corrections accrue new good conduct time. The intention of the legislature as reflected in the whole statute, and especially section 4, is to make an inmate eligible to earn good conduct time credit even upon return to the Texas Department of Corrections from parole or mard.atorysupervision. The construction of article 6184f, V.T.C.S., set out in Attorney General Opinion t$7-382is inconsistent with this intent. For the foregoing reasons we conclude that article 6184f has no bearing on the discretion of the Texas Department of Corrections to classify an inmate returned for violating his parole or mandatory supervision as a "trusty" fo:r the purpose of receiving good conduct time credit under article 6'1111-1,section 3(a)(3). Hence, to the extent that Attorney General Opinion MU-382 holds otherwise, it is hereby overruled. SUMMARY -- Article 6184f, V.T.C.S., does not prohibit the Texas Department of' Corrections from classifying an inmate returned due to revocation of parole or mandatory supervision as a "trusty" for purposes of good conduct ttme under section 3(a)(3) of article 6181-1, V.T.C.S. J k Very truly yo rfrv\ JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN First Assistant Attorney Gene:ral p. 1443 . . Mr. R. K. Procunier - Page 4 (JM-314) DAVID R. RICBARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General ROBERT GRAY Special Assistant Attorney Gereral RICK GILPIN Chairman, Opinion Cofmnittee Prepared by Colin J. Carl and Susan L. Garrison Assistant Attorneys General APPROVD: OPINION COMMITTEE Rick Gilpin, Chairman Jon Bible Colin Carl Susan Garrison Tony Guillory Jim Moellinger Jennifer Riggs Nancy Sutton p. 1444