OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 14, 1989
RICHARD M. GREENE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Claimant appeared in person.
Robert D. Pollitt, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.
Claimant is currently incarcerated in Pruntytown Correctional
and was formerly
incarcerated in the West Virginia Penitentiary. He contends that he
earned both overtime pay
and extra earned good time while serving his sentence. He has not
received compensation for
the overtime pay, and so brings this claim for $550.00.
Respondent alleges that claimant is in error. The applicable
Directive mandates that
prisoners shall be paid or shall be granted overtime or good time
credit; that the claimant was
granted good time credit and this credit was applicable against his
Claimant testified that he performed overtime work during his
incarceration. He was sent to the
West Virginia Penitentiary on June 19, 1980. His sentence is life
mercy. He has three years,
eight months, and twenty-nine days of overtime. He submitted a
the Court which
allegedly granted him good time as the result of an appeal before
special hearing officer.
John F. Massie, Records Clerk at the West Virginia State
testified with regard to
this claim. He stated that the files he maintains include the
for the claimant. He indicated
that claimant is serving a life sentence. He stated, "Inmates with
sentences really do not earn
good time... ." He does not take overtime or good time from a life
sentence. As those with life
sentences have no definite discharge date, Mr. Massie is unable to
calculate these time periods
for life sentences. The three years, eight months, and twenty-nine
are "on account" on
claimant's record. Should claimant have a sentence reduction, Mr.
explained, he would
deduct the time from his prison term and release him that much
Mr. Massie further stated
that only good time was awarded to prisoners serving definite time
periods as their sentences.
He stated that there are over 200 inmates in the life category, and
of these inmates
received any direct compensation for overtime. Claimant is not in
It is the opinion of the Court that the issue in this case has
been resolved by
respondent as explained hereinabove. For that reason the Court is
opinion to, and must
deny this claim.