Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

973 So. 2d 181

Doyle v. Stalder

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided December 21, 2007

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 2007-12-21

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2009

1 state decisions

Relies on 506 So. 2d 515 - Jackson v. Phelps · State Ex Rel. Jackson v. Phelps

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-12-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JASON DOYLE
v.
RICHARD STALDER, SECRETARY OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, PRICILLA PITRE, AND TERRY TERRELL.

No. 2007 CA 0860.

¶1Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit.

December 21, 2007.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.

¶2JASON DOYLE, Plaintiff/Appellant, In Proper Person.

¶3MELINDA L. LONG, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Richard Stalder, Secretary of Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections.

¶4Before GAIDRY, McDONALD, and McCLENDON, JJ.

¶5McCLENDON, J.

¶6In this suit by a prisoner, Jason Doyle, against the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the Secretary of the Department, Richard Stalder, and various employees (department), the denial of "good time" based on LSA-R.S. 15:537 was questioned. We affirm the district court's affirmance of the department's decision.

¶7After Mr. Doyle's requests for an administrative remedy were denied, he filed for judicial review in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Using settled tenets of statutory construction, the commissioner for the district court found that LSA-R.S. 15:537, which denies certain sexual offenders eligibility for diminution of sentence for good behavior (good time), was more narrowly drawn than the general diminution of sentence statute, LSA-R.S. 15: 571.3. Thus, LSA-R.S. 15:537 was particularly applicable to Mr. Doyle as a sexual offender. The district court, after a de novo review of the record, adopted the commissioner's recommendations, and affirmed the department's decision.

¶8After our thorough review of the record, we find that the commissioner's analysis adequately explained the basis for the decision and we agree with the commissioner's reasoning. Under the applicable statute, amendment of the sentence to require the department to implement such a reduction would be a violation of law. See Jackson v. Phelps, 506 So.2d 515 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 508 So.2d 829 (La.1987).

¶9Therefore, finding no abuse of discretion, manifest error, or error of law, we affirm the judgment in accordance with URCA Rule 2-16.2.A(4)(8). The costs of the appeal are assessed to the appellant, Jason Doyle.

¶10AFFIRMED.

/973/so2d/181 · .json · Public domain