The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has sided with the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) in a case involving an inmate’s attempt to get “good time” credit, potentially shortening his sentence. The court ruled that the inmate, Joshua Lashawn Booth, was not eligible for the credit due to the nature of his conviction.
The Core of the Dispute
The case centered around Booth’s conviction in 2018 for possessing obscene matter, specifically visual depictions of individuals under the age of 17 involved in obscene acts. He argued that he should receive correctional incentive time, which reduces the length of a prison sentence, under Alabama law. The ADOC denied his request, citing a law that prevents those convicted of sex offenses involving children from receiving such credit.
Booth contended that the law regarding incentive time only applies to offenses involving victims under the age of 12. His argument focused on the definition of “child” in a different section of the Alabama Code, which defines a child as someone under 12. Because his conviction involved individuals under 17, he believed the ADOC was misapplying the law.
The Court’s Reasoning
The court disagreed with Booth’s interpretation. It clarified that the relevant law, § 14-9-41(e), bars incentive time for those convicted of “a sex offense involving a child.” The court then looked at the definition of “sex offense involving a child,” as outlined in § 15-20A-4(26). This definition includes “any offense involving child pornography.”
The court emphasized that Booth’s conviction for possessing obscene matter with individuals under 17 years old falls squarely under the category of “child pornography” according to Alabama law. The court cited previous rulings to support this point, including the fact that Alabama’s legislature and courts consider violations of § 13A-12-192, the statute under which Booth was convicted, as violations of the “Alabama Child Pornography Act.”
Legal Technicalities and Venue
The case had a complex procedural history, including an initial ruling by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which was later overturned by the Alabama Supreme Court. The initial court determined that the case should have been filed in a different court. However, the Supreme Court determined that this was a matter of venue, not jurisdiction, and because the ADOC did not raise the issue in the initial court, they waived their ability to raise it later. The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider the merits of the case.
The Court of Criminal Appeals then clarified the standard of review for the case, which was a petition for a writ of certiorari. This means the court’s review was limited to determining whether the ADOC acted within its legal authority, whether its decision was supported by substantial evidence, and whether its actions were reasonable.
Discretionary Nature of Incentive Time
Finally, the court noted that even if Booth were eligible for correctional incentive time, granting it is ultimately at the discretion of the ADOC. The court cited previous rulings stating that “good time” is a privilege, not a right, in Alabama.
The Ruling
Ultimately, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the circuit court’s decision, which had initially granted Booth’s request for incentive time. The court determined that Booth was ineligible due to his conviction and the nature of the offense. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.