Preview:

RENDERED:  OCTOBER 12, 2007; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO.  2006-CA-001186-MR
JOHN REES, COMMISSIONER OF APPELLANT KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT  
v.  HONORABLE WILLIAM L. GRAHAM, JUDGE  
ACTION NO. 05-CI-01274  
SEAN MILLER  APPELLEE  
and  
NO. 2006-CA-001355-MR  
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,  
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  APPELLANT  
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT  
v.  HONORABLE WILLIAM L. GRAHAM, JUDGE  
ACTION NO. 06-CI-00403  
QUENTIN SUTTON  APPELLEE  
and  
NO. 2006-CA-001784-MR  
ROGER D. HANEY  APPELLANT  

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT

v. HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 06-CI-00328
KENTUCKY BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART

** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: KELLER AND VANMETER, JUDGES; GUIDUGLI,1 SENIOR JUDGE. GUIDUGLI, SENIOR JUDGE:  These three appeals involve the application of House Bill 269 to determine whether appellees, Sean Miller and Quentin Sutton, and appellant, Roger D. Haney, are entitled to credit for time spent on parole.  We will examine each appeal in turn.
2006-CA-001186-MR
Miller is currently serving a twenty-three year sentence.  He was paroled on a prior nine year sentence on July 22, 2003.  Thereafter, Miller absconded from parole. The parole board issued a warrant for that violation on June 29, 2004.  Miller was arrested and returned to prison in October 2004 for a technical violation.  His parole was revoked on February 4, 2005.  Miller filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in the Franklin Circuit Court after the Department of Corrections (DOC) refused to credit his unexpired sentence with the time he spent on parole.  The trial court held that pursuant to
1 Senior Judge Daniel T. Guidugli sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.
H.B. 269, the DOC must credit Miller for the time he spent on parole between July 22, 2003, and June 30, 2004.  This appeal followed.
The DOC argues that the trial court erred in granting Miller credit for time spent on parole because he was not entitled to such credit by the plain language of H.B.
269. We agree.2  KRS 439.344 states that

Download 2006-ca-001186.pdf

Kentucky Law