×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Good Time Petition Dismissed As Moot
The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington has dismissed as moot a petition by a former prisoner challenging the Washington Department of Corrections’ (DOC) method for calculating his good time.
Steven Salmon served an Oregon sentence and a portion of a concurrent Washington sentence in an Oregon state prison. Oregon gives good time at the rate of 20 percent; Washington gives good time at 50 percent. When Salmon completed his Oregon sentence, he was transferred to a Washington DOC facility. The DOC calculated Salmon’s good time while in prison in Oregon at the Oregon rate of 20 percent instead of the Washington rate of 50 percent.
Salmon sought judicial review claiming the DOC’s mixed method of calculating good time violated equal protection. Salmon’s petition was dismissed as moot, however, in light of his release. See: In re: Pers. Restraint Petition of Salmon, Wn. App., No. 26322-3-III (2008).
Steven Salmon served an Oregon sentence and a portion of a concurrent Washington sentence in an Oregon state prison. Oregon gives good time at the rate of 20 percent; Washington gives good time at 50 percent. When Salmon completed his Oregon sentence, he was transferred to a Washington DOC facility. The DOC calculated Salmon’s good time while in prison in Oregon at the Oregon rate of 20 percent instead of the Washington rate of 50 percent.
Salmon sought judicial review claiming the DOC’s mixed method of calculating good time violated equal protection. Salmon’s petition was dismissed as moot, however, in light of his release. See: In re: Pers. Restraint Petition of Salmon, Wn. App., No. 26322-3-III (2008).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
In re: Pers. Restraint Petition of Salmon
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Wn. App., No. 26322-3-III (2008) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 2305, *
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Steven Salmon, Petitioner.
No. 26322-3-III
COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE
2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 2305
September 25, 2008, Filed
NOTICE: RULES OF THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE WASHINGTON RULES OF COURT.
OPINION
¶1 Schultheis, C.J. ? Steven Salmon served an Oregon sentence and part of a subsequent Klickitat County, Washington sentence concurrently in an Oregon prison. Upon completing the Oregon sentence, he served the remainder of the Washington sentence in a Washington prison. The Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) credited Mr. Salmon with good time at the rate applied by the Oregon prison for the Oregon portion of his Washington sentence. The Oregon good time rate was 20 percent, while the maximum relevant Washington good time rate was 50 percent. RCW 9.94A.728(1)(b). Consequently, Mr. Salmon's earliest possible release date was significantly later than if he had served his entire Washington sentence in a Washington prison.
¶2 Mr. [*2] Salmon seeks relief from personal restraint. He contends the DOC's application of the Oregon good time rate to his Washington sentence denied him equal protection under the law. At this time, however, Mr. Salmon has served his entire sentence and has been released. His petition is moot because the court can no longer provide him effective relief. In re Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 376-77, 662 P.2d 828 (1983).
¶3 In a May 2, 2008 order, the chief judge concluded that, despite its mootness, the equal protection issue merited referral of Mr. Salmon's case to the panel for a determination on the merits. After further consideration of the arguments of the parties, however, the panel has decided that no justiciable controversy exists to justify review. 1 See State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 187 P.3d 233, 240 (2008); State v. Enlow, 143 Wn. App. 463, 470, 178 P.3d 366 (2008) (generally an appeal must be dismissed if the questions are moot or abstract).
FOOTNOTES
1 A justiciable controversy is an existing dispute (rather than a hypothetical, speculative, or moot disagreement) that involves direct and substantial interests (rather than theoretical, abstract, or academic interests). State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 187 P.3d 233, 240 (2008).
¶4 Accordingly, [*3] Mr. Salmon's petition is dismissed as moot. Cross, 99 Wn.2d at 376-77.
¶5 A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Sweeney and Kulik, JJ., concur.
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Steven Salmon, Petitioner.
No. 26322-3-III
COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE
2008 Wash. App. LEXIS 2305
September 25, 2008, Filed
NOTICE: RULES OF THE WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE WASHINGTON RULES OF COURT.
OPINION
¶1 Schultheis, C.J. ? Steven Salmon served an Oregon sentence and part of a subsequent Klickitat County, Washington sentence concurrently in an Oregon prison. Upon completing the Oregon sentence, he served the remainder of the Washington sentence in a Washington prison. The Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) credited Mr. Salmon with good time at the rate applied by the Oregon prison for the Oregon portion of his Washington sentence. The Oregon good time rate was 20 percent, while the maximum relevant Washington good time rate was 50 percent. RCW 9.94A.728(1)(b). Consequently, Mr. Salmon's earliest possible release date was significantly later than if he had served his entire Washington sentence in a Washington prison.
¶2 Mr. [*2] Salmon seeks relief from personal restraint. He contends the DOC's application of the Oregon good time rate to his Washington sentence denied him equal protection under the law. At this time, however, Mr. Salmon has served his entire sentence and has been released. His petition is moot because the court can no longer provide him effective relief. In re Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 376-77, 662 P.2d 828 (1983).
¶3 In a May 2, 2008 order, the chief judge concluded that, despite its mootness, the equal protection issue merited referral of Mr. Salmon's case to the panel for a determination on the merits. After further consideration of the arguments of the parties, however, the panel has decided that no justiciable controversy exists to justify review. 1 See State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 187 P.3d 233, 240 (2008); State v. Enlow, 143 Wn. App. 463, 470, 178 P.3d 366 (2008) (generally an appeal must be dismissed if the questions are moot or abstract).
FOOTNOTES
1 A justiciable controversy is an existing dispute (rather than a hypothetical, speculative, or moot disagreement) that involves direct and substantial interests (rather than theoretical, abstract, or academic interests). State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 187 P.3d 233, 240 (2008).
¶4 Accordingly, [*3] Mr. Salmon's petition is dismissed as moot. Cross, 99 Wn.2d at 376-77.
¶5 A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Sweeney and Kulik, JJ., concur.