(a) If a prisoner is confined upon more than one sentence, a parole permit may be issued
whenever he or she has served a term equal to one-third (⅓) of the aggregate time
which he or she shall be liable to serve under his or her several sentences, unless
he or she has been sentenced to serve two (2) or more terms concurrently, in which
case the permit shall be issued when he or she has served a term equal to one-third
(⅓) of the maximum term he or she is required to serve.
(b) If a prisoner, whether in confinement or on parole, is sentenced to serve a term of
imprisonment for an offense which was committed after imposition of the sentence then
being served, a permit may not be issued until he or she has served in confinement
at least one-third (⅓) of the term of imprisonment to which he or she is sentenced
for the subsequent offense. In calculating the date the prisoner shall become eligible
for a permit, the time spent in confinement on an earlier imposed concurrent sentence
shall not be credited for the purposes of parole eligibility on the subsequent sentence.
In the event a prisoner is convicted of two (2) or more subsequent offenses and is
sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment for those offenses, the standards contained
in subsection (a) of this section shall be used to determine when he or she has served
one-third (⅓) of the terms of confinement imposed for the subsequent offenses and
thereby is eligible for issuance of a permit under this subsection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901 (R.I. 2011).
Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901 (R.I. 2011).
· cites it 14× “12 *907 Lastly, the hearing justice considered and dismissed Brown’s claim of unlawful incarceration, deeming Brown’s interpretation of the pertinent parole statutes as fundamentally flawed and “contrary to the legislature’s clear intent” in enacting § 13-8-10. Accordingly, the…”
Lerner v. Gill, 463 A.2d 1352 (R.I. 1983).
· cites it 6× “General Laws 1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 13-8-10 provides that before being eligible for parole, a prisoner confined under consecutive sentences must serve at least one-third of the total of his sentences whereas a prisoner serving concurrent sentences becomes eligible for parole…”
DeCiantis v. State, 666 A.2d 410 (R.I. 1995).
· cites it 9× “1956 (1994 Reenactment) § 13-8-10 to require the Board to grant applicant parole on the concurrent sentences.”
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 421 A.2d 535 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Whereas in 1915 the determinative fraction for a prisoner serving a concurrent or consecutive sen *536 tence was one-half, here in the 1980s the fraction has been reduced to one-third, § 13-8-10. The eligibility time for a prisoner serving a life sentence has also been reduced…”
Skawinski v. State, 538 A.2d 1006 (R.I. 1988).
· cites it 2× “” In those instances in which a prisoner is subject to the imposition of more than one sentence, § 13-8-10 provides in part that “(a) If such prisoner be confined upon more than one (1) sentence, such permit may be issued whenever he has served a *1008 term equal to one-third…”
Francisco Martinez v. State of Rhode Island, 328 A.3d 626 (R.I. 2025).
· cites it 2× “1956] § 13-8-10, Mr. Martinez * * * would have parole eligibility determined by adding the minimum eligibility date of a life sentence to the minimum eligibility date of the consecutive term of years.”
Lerner v. Gill, 580 F. Supp. 1056 (D.R.I. 1984).
“provides that “In case of a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life, such permit (parole) may be issued at any time after such prisoner has served not less than ten (10) years imprisonment provided, however, in case of a prisoner serving a sentence or sentences of a length…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 13-8-10(a): 2 cases
Brown v. State, 32 A.3d 901 (R.I. 2011).
“12 *907 Lastly, the hearing justice considered and dismissed Brown’s claim of unlawful incarceration, deeming Brown’s interpretation of the pertinent parole statutes as fundamentally flawed and “contrary to the legislature’s clear intent” in enacting § 13-8-10. Accordingly, the…”
DeCiantis v. State, 666 A.2d 410 (R.I. 1995).
“1956 (1994 Reenactment) § 13-8-10 to require the Board to grant applicant parole on the concurrent sentences.”
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.