Opinion
June 27 as of June 21, 1960.
PRESENT: Condon, C.J., Roberts, Paolino, Powers and Frost, JJ.
1. CRIMINAL LAW. Courts. Jurisdiction to Sentence. Amendatory statute increased deductions from term of a prisoner's sentence and provided that it was to take effect upon passage and repealed all acts and parts of acts inconsistent therewith. On the question as to whether the act applied to prisoners who were serving their sentences on the date it became effective, Held, that if the statute was intended to have a retroactive effect the result would be tantamount to a revision of sentences imposed prior to its enactment and thus would be an indirect legislative alteration of the judgments of the court since the sentence in a criminal case is an essential part of a judicial judgment. G.L. 1956, § 13-2-44, as amended by P.L. 1960, c. 112.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Judgments of Courts. Legislative Interference. The view has been expressed in prior decisions of supreme court that the attempt of the general assembly to annul a judicial judgment was an unconstitutional exercise of judicial power.
3. STATUTES. Retroactive Effect. With respect to question as to whether amendatory statute had a retroactive effect as to sentences imposed by courts prior to its enactment, Held, that it was arguable from the language of the amendatory statute that the general assembly did not intend to give it a retroactive effect and court would deem it as reasonable to construe it as having only a prospective effect in accordance with the general rule of construction that statutes are presumed to operate only prospectively unless there is clear evidence therein to the contrary. G.L. 1956, § 13-2-44, as amended by P.L. 1960, c. 112.
4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Statutes. Retroactive Effect. Avoiding Unconstitutionality. On the question of whether an amendatory statute was retroactive in effect, Held, that if, from the language of the amendatory statute, it were equally reasonable to construe it either as retroactive or prospective, court would be obliged to adopt the construction that would avoid unconstitutionality and, where court was clearly of the opinion that the amendment would be unconstitutional if it were intended to operate retroactively, conclusion was reached that it was not so intended. P.L. 1960, c. 112.
5. CRIMINAL LAW. Sentences. Reduction for Good Behavior. Retroactive Effect of Statute. Amendatory statute increased deductions from term of prisoner's sentence as a reward for good behavior and court was asked whether the amendment applied to sentences which had been imposed prior to its enactment. Held, that the amendatory statute must be construed to apply only to those prisoners whose sentences were imposed subsequent to date of the enactment of such statute and, on this view, the old act remained in effect as to all sentences imposed prior to such date, since there was nothing inconsistent in allowing that act to operate to such an extent, while the amendatory statute was restricted to sentences imposed subsequent to its enactment.
REQUEST FOR AN OPINION filed by governor in accordance with provisions of section 2 of article XII of amendments to constitution of Rhode Island with reference to the effect of an amendatory statute relating to deductions from term of a prisoner's sentence as a reward for good behavior during imprisonment. First question propounded answered in the negative and, because of such answer, second question held not to arise.
June 21, 1960
To His Excellency, Christopher Del Sesto Governor of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
We have received from Your Excellency a request for our written opinion in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article XII of amendments to the constitution of this state upon the following questions:
"(1) Does Chapter 112 of the Public Laws of 1960 apply to prisoners who were serving their sentences in the Adult Correctional Institutions on May 6, 1960?
"(2) If so, should the time to be allowed for good behavior be computed solely under Chapter 112 so as to give retroactive effect to Chapter 112; or should there be an apportionment, namely, that (a) the period of time from the start of the sentence to May 6, 1960 be computed under the old law, and (b) from on and after that date, the time be computed under the new law?"
Chapter 112 of public laws 1960 is an amendment of general laws 1956, § 13-2-44, which authorizes certain deductions from the term of a prisoner's sentence as a reward for good behavior during imprisonment. Among other things the amendment increases the deductions allowed under the pre-existing statute from five days per month plus two days per month for working in the prison industries to ten days per month plus two days per month for such work. The act provides that it shall take effect upon its passage and that all acts and parts of acts inconsistent therewith are repealed. It was approved by the governor on May 6, 1960 and therefore became effective on that date.
Apparently a controversy has arisen between the department of the attorney general and the department of social welfare as to whether this amendment can be validly applied in favor of prisoners who were sentenced prior to May 6, 1960. In accordance with a suggestion in your request for our opinion we allowed each department to submit a brief in support of its view. Each brief has been of assistance, but on the view which we take of the law it has been necessary for us to consider only the first question. Therefore this opinion is confined solely to that question.
If chapter 112 was intended by the general assembly to have a retroactive effect and therefore apply to sentences imposed prior to May 6, 1960, the result would be tantamount to a revision of such sentences to an extent not authorized by law at the time the sentences were imposed and thus would be an indirect legislative alteration of the judgments of the court. The sentence in a criminal case is an essential part of a judicial judgment. State v. Garnetto, 75 R.I. 86; Commonwealth ex rel. Johnson v. Halloway, 42 Pa. 446. This appears to be the generally accepted view. At least no case expressly to the contrary has been called to our attention and we are not aware of any.
In addition to the last case above cited the following cases have held that it is an invasion of the judicial power for the legislature to pass an act reducing for good behavior the sentences of prisoners convicted prior thereto. Ex parte Darling, 16 Nev. 98; Ex parte Woodburn, 32 Nev. 136. See also Fredericks v. Gladden, 211 Ore. 312. And it should be observed that an opinion given to the senate and the house of representatives, reported in 3 R.I. 299, while not precisely in point, nevertheless is fundamentally based on the view that the attempt of the general assembly to annul a judicial judgment was an unconstitutional exercise of judicial power. That view was later expressly affirmed by the court in a litigated civil case which involved an indirect attempt on the part of the general assembly to invade the province of the judicial department. G. D. Taylor Co. v. Place, 4 R.I. 324.
[3, 4] However, it is arguable from the language of chapter 112 that the general assembly did not intend to give the amendment a retroactive effect. We think it is as reasonable if not more so to construe it as having only a prospective effect in accordance with the general rule of construction that statutes are presumed to operate only prospectively unless there is clear evidence therein to the contrary. But even if it were equally reasonable to construe it either as retroactive or prospective we would be obliged to adopt the construction that would avoid unconstitutionality. Consequently since we are clearly of the opinion that the amendment would be unconstitutional if it was intended to operate retroactively, we have concluded that it was not so intended.
It is our opinion that chapter 112 of public laws 1960 must be construed to apply only to those prisoners whose sentences were imposed subsequent to May 6, 1960. On this view the old act with reference to allowances for good behavior remains in effect as to all sentences imposed prior to such date, since there is nothing inconsistent in allowing that act to operate to such extent, while chapter 112 is restricted to sentences imposed subsequent to its enactment.
Therefore our answer to the first question propounded is in the negative. Because of such answer, the second question does not arise.
FRANCIS B. CONDON THOMAS H. ROBERTS THOMAS J. PAOLINO WILLIAM E. POWERS G. FREDERICK FROST