Thorson v. Colorado Department of Corrections

801 P.2d 540, 14 Brief Times Rptr. 1554, 1990 Colo. LEXIS 801, 1990 WL 178604
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedNovember 19, 1990
Docket89SA475
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 801 P.2d 540 (Thorson v. Colorado Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thorson v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 801 P.2d 540, 14 Brief Times Rptr. 1554, 1990 Colo. LEXIS 801, 1990 WL 178604 (Colo. 1990).

Opinion

Justice ERICKSON

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal by the petitioner, Kip Thorson, from the denial of habeas corpus relief. We affirm.

I

On March 6, 1987, Kip Thorson was sentenced to eight years and one day for a conviction of first degree assault committed on December 15, 1984. 1 On July 3, 1989, Thorson petitioned for habeas corpus asserting that he should be unconditionally discharged by the Department of Corrections on June 24, 1990, his mandatory parole date. Thorson claimed that his good time and earned time credits under sections 17-22.5-301(2) & -302(3), 8A C.R.S. (1986), constitute service of his sentence, and that by June 24, 1990, these credits combined with his actual time served would equal the sentence imposed.

II

Good time and earned time credits do not constitute service of sentence, but only serve the purpose of determining an inmate’s parole eligibility date. Jones v. Martinez, 799 P.2d 385 (Colo.1990); Williamson v. Jordon, 797 P.2d 744 (Colo.1990); Wiedemer v. People, 784 P.2d 739, 740 (Colo.1989); Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735, 738 (Colo.1989). Until Thorson has served his entire sentence, he is not entitled to release.

Thorson’s petition for habeas corpus was also untimely. Under the Habeas Corpus Act, sections 13-45-101 to -119, 6A C.R.S. (1987), an inmate must establish that he is entitled to release in order to obtain habeas corpus relief. Deason v. Kautzky, 786 P.2d 420, 423 (Colo.1990). Habeas corpus, if granted, must have an immediate practical effect on the restraint of the prisoner. Kodama v. Johnson, 786 P.2d 417, *542 419 (Colo.1990). Since Thorson filed his petition prior to the date he claimed he was entitled to release, his petition for habeas corpus relief was premature and the petition was properly denied.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. § 18-3-202, 8B C.R.S. (1986 & 1990 Supp.).

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

Related

Davis v. Furlong
894 P.2d 765 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1995)
Spoto v. Colorado State Department of Corrections
883 P.2d 11 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1994)
Pearson v. Diesslin
848 P.2d 364 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1993)
Meyers v. Price
842 P.2d 229 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1992)
People v. Swepston
822 P.2d 510 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
801 P.2d 540, 14 Brief Times Rptr. 1554, 1990 Colo. LEXIS 801, 1990 WL 178604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorson-v-colorado-department-of-corrections-colo-1990.