Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 244.04 (2026)

Good Time

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Reduction of sentence; inmates sentenced for crimes committed before 1993.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.11, subdivision 6, and Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 609.109, subdivision 1, the term of imprisonment of any inmate sentenced to a presumptive fixed sentence after May 1, 1980, and whose crime was committed before August 1, 1993, shall be reduced in duration by one day for each two days during which the inmate violates none of the disciplinary offense rules promulgated by the commissioner. The reduction shall accrue to the period of supervised release to be served by the inmate, except that the period of supervised release for a sex offender conditionally released by the commissioner under section 609.3455 is governed by that provision.

Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, if an inmate whose crime was committed before August 1, 1993, violates a disciplinary offense rule promulgated by the commissioner, good time earned prior to the violation may not be taken away, but the inmate may be required to serve an appropriate portion of the term of imprisonment after the violation without earning good time.

Subd. 1a.Reduction of sentence; inmates sentenced before 1980.

Every inmate sentenced before May 1, 1980, for any term other than life, confined in a state adult correctional facility or on parole therefrom, may diminish the maximum term of sentence one day for each two days during which the inmate has not violated any facility rule or discipline.

The commissioner of corrections, in view of the aggravated nature and frequency of offenses, may take away any or all of the good time previously gained, and, in consideration of mitigating circumstances or ignorance on the part of the inmate, may afterwards restore the inmate, in whole or in part, to the standing the inmate possessed before such good time was taken away.

Subd. 2.Loss of good time.

By May 1, 1980, the commissioner shall promulgate rules specifying disciplinary offenses which may result in the loss of good time and the amount of good time which may be lost as a result of each disciplinary offense, including provision for restoration of good time. In no case shall an individual disciplinary offense result in the loss of more than 90 days of good time; except that no inmate confined in segregation for violation of a disciplinary rule shall be placed on supervised release until discharged or released from punitive segregation confinement, nor shall an inmate in segregation for violation of a disciplinary rule for which the inmate could also be prosecuted under the criminal laws earn good time while in segregation. The loss of good time shall be considered to be a disciplinary sanction imposed upon an inmate, and the procedure for the loss of good time and the rights of the inmate in the procedure shall be those in effect for the imposition of other disciplinary sanctions at each state correctional institution.

Subd. 3.Provisions not applicable to certain inmates.

The provisions of this section do not apply to an inmate serving a mandatory life sentence or to persons whose crimes were committed on or after August 1, 1993.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2021 · leading case: State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. §§ 244.04; 244.05, subd. 1 (2004).”

State v. Barg, 391 N.W.2d 773 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 32× “The Court of Appeals reasoned as follows: (a) under Minn.Stat. § 244.04 (1984), [1] *775 a person can earn good time credit only if he is under the control of the Commissioner of Corrections during the time he is in custody, and Barg was not under the control of the Commissioner…”

State v. Calmes, 632 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. §§ 244.04, subd. 1, 244.05, subd.”

Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1996). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. §§ 244.04, 244.05, subd. 1 (1994); Minn.”

Carrillo v. Fabian, 701 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 4× “" Minn.Stat. § 244.04, subd. 1 (2004). Such a reduction in sentence length is analogous to the reduction due to "good time credits" in Wolff.”

State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 2× “Further, the legislature adopted the description “supervised release” to define the period of mandatory community supervision following imprisonment if the inmate was released early due to having earned good time.”

State v. Martinez, 319 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 4× “…In effect, this means that the sentence actually imposed can result in a sentence of only two-thirds of its length. Minn.Stat. § 244.04 (1980).”

Rud v. Fabian, 743 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “These directives were codified at Minn. Stat. § 244.04 , subd. 2. The district court determined that Rud is being denied due process because there is no process that he can use to restore the good time that he lost as a result of his violation of ODR 510.”

State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian, 716 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “"Good time” is defined as "the period of time by which an inmate’s term of imprisonment is reduced pursuant to section 244.04.” Minn.Stat. § 244.01, subd.”

Williams v. State, 361 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. 1985). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 244.04, subd. 1 (1983). The Sentencing Guidelines Commission responded to this change by reducing what it termed “the inflated presumptive sentences.”

State v. Northard, 348 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 244.04, subd. 1 (1982); Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, II.”

Seifert v. Erickson, 420 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “Did the court err in failing to order an evidentiary hearing? DISCUSSION I Minn.Stat. § 244.04, subd. 1 (1986), provides that *919 the term of imprisonment of any inmate sentenced to a presumptive fixed sentence after May 1,1980, shall be reduced in duration by one day for each…”

Show all 29 citing cases →

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.