Appeal from the Nineteenth District Court In and for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No.
629, 847 The Honorable William Morvant, Judge Presiding
Charles Ray Wallace Winn Correctional Center Winnfield,
Louisiana In Proper Person
Jonathan R. Vining Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for
Appellees, James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, and Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.
Charles Ray Wallace, an inmate in the custody of the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC),
housed at Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana,
appeals a judgment of the district court that affirmed the
decision of DPSC and dismissed his petition for judicial
review with prejudice. Based on our review of the record, we
affirm the district court's judgment.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Wallace filed a petition for judicial review in the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court (19th JDC) seeking review
of ARP No. WNC-2013-1134 in accordance with the Louisiana
Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure
("CARP"), La. R.S. 15:1171 et seq. Mr.
Wallace was arrested on October 21, 1986, the same date he
committed the offenses of armed robbery and attempted
second-degree murder. He was initially sentenced on February
20, 1987, to hard labor for forty years for armed robbery and
thirty years for attempted second-degree murder, to run
concurrently. He was released from prison on January 17,
2009, after receiving a dimunition of sentence, commonly
known as good time.Mr. Wallace was rearrested on April 25,
2012, for aggravated battery, pled guilty, and was sentenced
to seven years. That sentence was to run concurrently with
the remaining fourteen years of his previous sentence. Mr.
Wallace claims that when he originally was released from
prison in 2009, he should not have been required to be under
parole supervision. He also claims that he was entitled to
earn good time at a rate of sixty days for every thirty days,
and therefore, he should have originally been released from
custody a decade before he was released on January 17, 2009.
Mr. Wallace asserts that his good time was miscalculated and
that he is entitled to immediate release.
Wallace filed his request for administrative relief pursuant
to CARP. The request was denied on November 25,
2013. At the first step of the CARP process, Mr. Wallace was
told that on January 17, 2009, he was properly released under
good time parole supervision in accordance with 1981 La.
Acts, No. 762, § 1, effective July 1, 1982, enacting La.
R.S. 15:571.5. He was further told that he was not entitled
to sixty days of good time for every thirty days just because
he had concurrent sentences. Therefore, DPSC determined that
Mr. Wallace was correctly placed on good time parole
supervision and his good time computation were correctly
calculated. At the second step, his request was again denied.
Wallace filed a petition for judicial review in the district
court. The 19th JDC Commissioner (Commissioner) issued a
recommendation that the final administrative decision be
affirmed to deny relief and that the suit be dismissed with
prejudice. In a judgment signed on July 18, 2017, the
district court adopted the recommendation of the Commissioner
after considering the administrative record, the
Commissioner's Report, and the traversal filed by Mr.
Wallace. It is from this judgment that Mr. Wallace appeals.
Revised Statute 15:1177(A)(9) sets forth the appropriate
standard of review by the district court, which functions as
an appellate court when reviewing DPSC's administrative
decisions. Judicial review is mandated to be conducted by the
trial court without a jury and must be confined to the
record. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5). Specifically, the court may
reverse or modify the administrative decision only if
substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced
because the administrative findings are: (1) in violation of
constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the
statutory authority of the agency, (3) made upon unlawful
procedure, (4) affected by other error of law, (5) arbitrary
or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion, or (6)
manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and
substantial evidence on the whole record. La. R.S.
15:1177(A)(9); Lightfoot v. Stalder, 2000-1120
(La.App. 1 Cir. 6/22/01), 808 So.2d 710, 715-716, writ
denied, 2001-2295 (La. 8/30/02), 823 So.2d 957.
review of the district court's judgment under La. R.S.
15:1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the
factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court,
just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court
to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of
appeal. McCoy v. Stalder, 99-1747 (La.App. 1 Cir.
9/22/00), 770 So.2d 447, 450-51.
Wallace claims on appeal that he should not have been
released on January 17, 2009, under parole supervision, and
that he should have been credited with sixty days for every
thirty days served. As noted by the Commissioner, Mr. Wallace
is questioning DPSC's authority to require parole
supervision pursuant to La. R.S. 15:571.5. Mr. Wallace
asserts that the good time statute applicable to his sentence
is 1987 La. Acts, No. 848, § 1, effective January 1,
1988, which added La. R.S. 15:571.14(8) (currently
incorporated into La. R.S. I5;57l.3),  and that because
it said nothing about release on ...