Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


Campbell v. State

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 01-30-2013
Case #: A150123
Brewer, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P. J.; Duncan, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A150123.pdf

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision: An inmate is not eligible to receive "good time" credit for his first sentence, under ORS 421.120, when he is serving consecutive sentences. Also, a date set for when an inmate is eligible for parole is not a reduction of his sentence.

Campbell, a former inmate, appealed the trial court’s judgment to dismiss his negligence claim. Campbell claimed he had been unlawfully imprisoned for two years. He believes the State negligently calculated his consecutive indeterminate sentences, one for burglary and one for kidnapping. Campbell presented two theories: 1) that the Department of Corrections unlawfully treated him as a parolee in 2005, and 2) that he was not credited for his “good time,” under ORS 421.120. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court; Campbell was not unlawfully imprisoned. A prison term is not the same as a sentence. When the board set a “prison term”, that established when Campbell was eligible for parole and did not reduce his sentence. Campbell incorrectly believed that he was sentenced to 58 months; meaning he was serving the two sentences concurrently. In actuality, the sentences were consecutive. The fact that these two sentences were to be served consecutively also means that he had not reached his “good time” date before he was paroled. Even if he had reached his “good time” date, Campbell was not entitled to it because of his consecutive sentences. Affirmed.