Section 133. Parole permits may be granted by the parole board to prisoners subject to its jurisdiction at such time as the board in each case may determine; provided, however, that no prisoner sentenced to the state prison shall be eligible for such permit until such prisoner shall have served the minimum term of sentence, pursuant to section twenty-four of chapter two hundred and seventy-nine, as such minimum term of sentence may be reduced by deductions allowed under section one hundred and twenty-nine D. Where an inmate is serving two or more consecutive or concurrent state prison sentences, a single parole eligibility shall be established for all such sentences. Prisoners who are granted parole permits shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the board until the expiration of the maximum term of sentence or, if a prisoner has two or more sentences to be served otherwise than concurrently, until the aggregate maximum term of such sentence, unless earlier terminated by the board under the provisions of section one hundred thirty A. Sentences of imprisonment in the state prison shall not be suspended in whole or in part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61
cases, 1968–2020 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Brown, 730 N.E.2d 297 (Mass. 2000).
Commonwealth v. Brown, 730 N.E.2d 297 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 5ד4 The application of this provision yields the typical State prison sentence (for example, from three to five years or from ten to fifteen years).”
Connery v. Comm'r of Corr., 598 N.E.2d 1135 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 8דcomputed as a fraction of the minimum sentence pursuant to G. L. c. 127, § 133 (1990 ed.). A Superior Court judge dismissed the prisoners’ case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Henschel v. Comm'r of Corr., 330 N.E.2d 480 (Mass. 1975). · cites it 7דIn reliance on G. L. c. 127, § 133, cl. (a), the board first aggregated the A and B sentences, adding the minimum terms of the two consecutive sentences and taking two-thirds of that period as the minimum time to be served.”
Foss v. Commonwealth, 773 N.E.2d 958 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 2דSee G. L. c. 127, § 133, as amended through St.”
Commonwealth v. Nassar, 406 N.E.2d 1286 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 2ד764, § 1), prisoners convicted of certain listed crimes are not eligible for parole until *915 they have served at least two-thirds of their minimum sentence (but not less than two years). Other prisoners need only serve one-third of their minimum sentence (but not less than one…”
Connery v. Comm'r of Corr., 414 Mass. 1009 (Mass. 1993). · cites it 3ד127, § 129D, should be subtracted from the minimum term of a [Sjtate prison sentence, or from that portion of the minimum *1010 sentence that G. L. c. 127, § 133 requires to be served prior to parole eligibility.”
Commonwealth v. Azar, 825 N.E.2d 999 (Mass. 2005). “Such “split” sentences were legal at the time of the defendant’s conviction, the amendment prohibiting the suspension of State prison sentences not taking effect until after the defendant’s murder conviction.”
Commonwealth v. Lutskov, 106 N.E.3d 632 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 2ד127, § 129D ; G. L. c. 127, § 133 ; 120 Code Mass. Regs.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 1 N.E.3d 259 (Mass. 2013). “There, the judge would first apply severability principles to G. L. c. 127, § 133 A, and omit the exception to parole eligibility for juveniles convicted of murder in the first degree.”
Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 841 N.E.2d 1240 (Mass. 2006). “Although not material here, the authority to suspend a sentence of incarceration in a State prison, as opposed to a house of correction, has been eliminated by G. L. c. 127, § 133, as appearing in St. 1993, c.”
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 474 N.E.2d 154 (Mass. 1985). · cites it 2דG. L. c. 127, §133. That general rule did not apply, however, because the defendant was still on parole when he committed these three crimes.”
Connery v. Comm'r of Corr., 598 N.E.2d 1135 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). “computed as a fraction of the minimum sentence pursuant to G. L. c. 127, § 133 (1990 ed.). A Superior Court judge dismissed the prisoners’ case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Connery v. Comm'r of Corr., 598 N.E.2d 1135 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992). “computed as a fraction of the minimum sentence pursuant to G. L. c. 127, § 133 (1990 ed.). A Superior Court judge dismissed the prisoners’ case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.