Dortch v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Dortch v. State

654 So. 2d 105, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 45, 1995 WL 11494

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 13, 1995

DocketCR-93-0842

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 654 So. 2d 105 (Dortch v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dortch v. State, 654 So. 2d 105, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 45, 1995 WL 11494 (Ala. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTIEL, Judge.

The appellant, Douglas Earl Dortch, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claims, among other things, that he is entitled to retroactive correctional incentive time. The appellant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and the denial of retroactive incentive time was based on § 14-9-41(h), Code of Alabama 1975, which excepts sex offenders from those eligible for retroactive incentive time. We have previously held that the omission of sex offenders from eligibility for retroactive incentive time violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Sims v. State, 625 So.2d 1192 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Brooks v. State, 622 So.2d 447, 450-51 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). Therefore, upon this authority, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with Sims and Brooks.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MONTIEL, Judge.

The appellant, Douglas Earl Dortch, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claims, among other things, that he is entitled to retroactive correctional incentive time. The appellant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and the denial of retroactive incentive time was based on § 14-9-41(h), Code of Alabama 1975, which excepts sex offenders from those eligible for retroactive incentive time. We have previously held that the omission of sex offenders from eligibility for retroactive incentive time violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Sims v. State, 625 So.2d 1192 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Brooks v. State, 622 So.2d 447, 450-51 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). Therefore, upon this authority, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with Sims and Brooks.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 105, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 45, 1995 WL 11494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dortch-v-state-alacrimapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack