Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Poe v. Housewright
Citations: 271 Ark. 771; 601 S.W.2d 577; 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1156Docket: 80-191
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; January 26, 1981; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Darrell Hickman, Justice, addresses the statutory interpretation of parole eligibility for inmates, specifically concerning Charles Joseph Poe, convicted of burglary and grand larceny in 1976. Poe argues that the Department of Correction incorrectly deemed him ineligible for parole, prompting him to seek a writ of mandamus in Jefferson County Circuit Court. Both parties filed for summary judgment based on the same legal statutes. Poe contends that if his interpretation is correct, he should be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence; conversely, the Department maintains that he must serve half of his sentence before eligibility. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Department, leading to this appeal. The decision is affirmed. Poe's crimes occurred before the enactment of Act 1161, which mandates that individuals in his position serve half their sentence before parole eligibility. Act 93 of 1977, however, states that those convicted of crimes prior to April 1, 1977, should be eligible for parole according to the law in effect at the time of their offense. Poe argues this provision retroactively alters his parole eligibility under a previous law (Act 94 of 1969) which allows parole after one-third of the sentence. The court finds that an analysis of both Acts suggests the General Assembly did not intend to change Poe's status. A literal reading of Section 2(A) would imply a significant alteration, but this contradicts the overall legislative intent and purpose of Act 93, which was designed for offenses committed after April 1, 1977. The court concludes that it is not reasonable to assume the General Assembly intended to impose a lighter punishment on already sentenced inmates. Given that Poe's sentencing occurred under Act 1161, which clearly requires him to serve half his time, he is not prejudiced by the ruling. Justice Purtle dissents.