Legal Opinion · Dissent

Thomas v. Merritt

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 6, 2013No. 1111588 and 1120264Published

1DissentMurdock, Justice

I respectfully dissent. The concept of the “confinement” of an inmate necessarily encompasses whatever programs are involved in the inmate’s term of incarceration.10 That is, I cannot agree that the inmate is not “confined” within the meaning of the statute at all times during the term of his or her incarceration. This was the conclusion of the Court of Civil Appeals in an earlier iteration of this case. See Alabama Dep’t of Corr. v. Merritt, 74 So.3d 1 (Ala.Civ.App.2010). I find the logic and reasoning of the Court of Civil Appeals in this regard to be compelling:

“DOC[11] argues that, from…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. Michael TimbrookCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
  2. United States v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  3. Cagle v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1992
  4. Ex Parte Alabama Department of Corrections, 1100129 (Ala. 5-13-2011)Supreme Court of Alabama · 2011
  5. Alabama Department of Corrections v. MerrittCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2010

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API