Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Ira D. Lustgarden, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Walter Kautzky, Executi

PER CURIAM

The two cases before us are pro se appeals brought by inmates whose separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus were denied by the Fremont County District Court. Both inmates are serving sentences for convictions of sexual offenses as defined in section 16-13-202(5), 8A C.R.S. (1986). The crimes in question were committed after July 1, 1979 but before July 1, 1985. Both are eligible for parole but the Parole Board has declined to place them on parole. Each petitioned for habeas corpus relief on the ground that he was entitled to mandatory parole because of his accumulated good time credits.

Under section 17-2-201(5)(a), 8A C.R.S. (1986), parole for these inmates is discretionary not mandatory. See Aue v. Diesslin, 798 P.2d 436 (Colo. 1990), and Thiret v. Kautzky, 792 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1990). See also Campbell v. Solano, 807 P.2d 583 (Colo. 1991) ( per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders denying both inmates' petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LUSTGARDEN v. KAUTZKY
(May 20, 1991)