Could the Texas Department of Corrections classify a returned parole or mandatory-supervision violator as a trusty so the inmate could earn good-conduct time?

Texas AG Opinion JM-314: Returned Inmate Good Time

Plain-English summary

The Texas Department of Corrections asked whether article 6184f barred it from classifying an inmate returned after revocation of parole or mandatory supervision as a trusty for good-conduct-time purposes. The request asked whether the statute prohibited “classifying an inmate returned due to revocation of his parole or mandatory supervision as ‘trusty’ for the purpose of earning good conduct pursuant to article 6181-1, section 3(a)(3), V.T.C.S.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

JM-314 answered no. Its summary stated: “Article 6184f, V.T.C.S., does not prohibit the Texas Department of Corrections from classifying an inmate returned due to revocation of parole or mandatory supervision as a ‘trusty’ for purposes of good conduct time under section 3(a)(3) of article 6181-1, V.T.C.S.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

The opinion read article 6184f as addressing an inmate's behavior outside prison while already serving in a trusty status. It stated that the provision “obviously pertained to the inmate's behavior outside the prison while in a ‘trusty’ status.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

JM-314 therefore overruled part of Attorney General Opinion MW-382. It concluded that “to the extent that Attorney General Opinion MW-382 holds otherwise, it is hereby overruled.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did article 6184f impose a 12-month bar on every returned parole violator's trusty classification?

No. JM-314 said article 6184f “does not address violations of parole or mandatory supervision conditions.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

What conduct did the 12-month restriction address?

The opinion treated it as a restriction following misconduct by an inmate outside prison while serving as a trusty. It said the purpose was to prevent an inmate returned “for misbehavior while outside the prison” from being appointed a trusty with freedom to remain unguarded outside prison. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

Did article 6184f govern an inmate's ability to earn good-conduct time?

No. JM-314 stated: “However, article 6184f does not have any bearing on an inmate's ability to earn good conduct time.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

What statute controlled good-conduct-time classification?

JM-314 identified article 6181-1. It stated: “We believe that article 6181-1, V.T.C.S., controls the provision of good conduct time to inmates.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

Could a returned inmate begin accruing new good-conduct time?

Yes. Section 4 said that after revocation and return, the inmate “may accrue new good conduct time for subsequent time served in the department.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Article 6184f provided that a convict who violated his trust or engaged in objectionable community conduct would not be eligible for appointment as a trusty for 12 months. The quoted statute said: “such convict shall not thereafter be eligible to appointment as a trusty for twelve months.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

The provision came from a 1925 enactment concerning the handling of trusties around penitentiaries and prison farms. JM-314 described it as section 6 of “An Act to regulate and more definitely prescribe the manner of handling trusties around the penitentiaries and penitentiary farms.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

Article 6181-1 required inmate classification and set good-conduct-time accrual for Class I, Class II, and trusty classifications. The opinion stated: “Section 3(a) establishes the amount of good conduct time accrued by inmates in the following three classifications: Class I, Class II, and trusty.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

Citations and references

• Article 6184f, V.T.C.S.
• Article 6181-1, V.T.C.S., sections 2, 3(a), 3(b), and 4
• Acts 1925, 39th Leg., ch. 19, §6, at 46-7
• Attorney General Opinion MW-382 (1981), overruled in part

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0314
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0314.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

May 10, 1985

Mr. R. K. Procunier
Director
Texas Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77340

Opinion No. JM-314

Re: Whether article 6184f, V.T.C.S., prohibits classification of an inmate as a trusty for the purpose of article 6181-1, V.T.C.S.

Dear Mr. Procunier:

You have asked whether article 6184f, V.T.C.S.,

prohibits the Texas Department of Corrections from classifying an inmate returned due to revocation of his parole or mandatory supervision as ‘trusty’ for the purpose of earning good conduct pursuant to article 6181-1, section 3(a)(3), V.T.C.S.

You note your agency's “strongly held opinion that it does not, but because of Texas Attorney General Opinion MW-382 (1981)” you feel compelled to make this opinion request. The second question dealt with in MW-382 asked the following:

Does the Texas Department of Corrections have the discretion to classify an inmate who is a parole violator or mandatory supervision returnee as a state approved trusty. . . ?

The opinion based its answer to this question on article 6184f, V.T.C.S., which provides as follows:

Whenever a convict violates his trust or his conduct is such that he makes himself objectionable to the citizens of the community in which he is located, and complaint is made to the Board of Prison Commissioners, or to any officer having charge of said convict by two or more good and reliable citizens, and it is found upon investigation by the Prison Commission that the complaint is well founded, such convict shall not thereafter be eligible to appointment as a trusty for twelve months. It shall be the duty of the Prison Commissioners to see that the warden and farm managers faithfully carry out the provisions of this Act. (Footnote omitted).

Relying on this provision, Attorney General Opinion MW-382 concluded that

the Texas Board of Corrections does not have the discretion to classify an inmate who is a parole violator or mandatory supervision returnee as a state approved trusty until at least twelve months after the inmate's return to the Texas Department of Corrections.

On reconsideration of this question, we have determined that article 6184f, V.T.C.S., does not address violations of parole or mandatory supervision conditions.

Article 6184f was enacted in 1925 as section 6 of a bill entitled “An Act to regulate and more definitely prescribe the manner of handling trusties around the penitentiaries and penitentiary farms. . . .” Acts 1925, 39th Leg., ch. 19, §6, at 46-7. The prohibition by that section 6, which has remained unchanged as article 6184f, of an inmate being classified as a trusty for twelve months after violating “his trust” by objectionable conduct obviously pertained to the inmate's behavior outside the prison while in a “trusty” status. It is apparent that the only purpose of article 6184f was to prevent the prison from allowing an inmate returned to the prison for misbehavior while outside the prison from being appointed a “trusty” with freedom to be unguarded outside the prison. The legislature did not want an inmate who was returned for objectionable conduct while in the community in a “trusty” status to be allowed back in the community as a “trusty” for at least one year. However, article 6184f does not have any bearing on an inmate's ability to earn good conduct time. Article 6184f should therefore be limited to the evil it was intended to remedy: prohibiting certain inmates from being allowed to be at large in the community for a certain period of time. We therefore conclude that the answer to the second question in MW-382 was incorrect insofar as it purported to proscribe prospective classification of a parole or mandatory supervision returnee as a trusty.

We believe that article 6181-1, V.T.C.S., controls the provision of good conduct time to inmates. Section 2 of article 6181-1, V.T.C.S., requires the department to classify all inmates upon arrival and to reclassify them as warranted. Section 3(a) establishes the amount of good conduct time accrued by inmates in the following three classifications: Class I, Class II, and trusty. No good conduct time accrues while an inmate is a Class III inmate or is on parole or under mandatory supervision. V.T.C.S. art. 6181-1, §3(b). Section 4 of article 6181-1 provides as follows:

Upon revocation of parole or mandatory supervision, the inmate . . . upon return to the department may accrue new good conduct time for subsequent time served in the department. (Emphasis added).

Thus, the legislature has expressly provided that an inmate released on parole or mandatory supervision who has been thereafter returned to the Texas Department of Corrections accrue new good conduct time. The intention of the legislature as reflected in the whole statute, and especially section 4, is to make an inmate eligible to earn good conduct time credit even upon return to the Texas Department of Corrections from parole or mandatory supervision. The construction of article 6184f, V.T.C.S., set out in Attorney General Opinion MW-382 is inconsistent with this intent.

For the foregoing reasons we conclude that article 6184f has no bearing on the discretion of the Texas Department of Corrections to classify an inmate returned for violating his parole or mandatory supervision as a “trusty” for the purpose of receiving good conduct time credit under article 6181-1, section 3(a)(3). Hence, to the extent that Attorney General Opinion MW-382 holds otherwise, it is hereby overruled.

SUMMARY

Article 6184f, V.T.C.S., does not prohibit the Texas Department of Corrections from classifying an inmate returned due to revocation of parole or mandatory supervision as a “trusty” for purposes of good conduct time under section 3(a)(3) of article 6181-1, V.T.C.S.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General

DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Colin J. Carl
and Susan L. Garrison
Assistant Attorneys General

APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton