Inmate Hero Earned Reward, Court Rules

A prisoner who saved the life of a prison employee should have had his sentence reduced as a reward for his heroism despite the state’s strict three-strikes sentencing law, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous decision, the state high court said that lower courts had erred when they found Ronnie E. Young could not benefit from a state law that rewards inmates who save lives behind bars.

“In prisons, where correctional officers and other employees face substantial dangers already, encouraging prisoners to behave in a manner that might save lives is commendable and necessary,” Justice Ming Chin wrote for the court.

Young, 30, was serving a nine-year sentence for burglary when he saved the life of Bud Stocking, a prison work supervisor, in January 2001. Stocking was choking on food and motioned to another inmate to help.

That inmate refused to budge.

Young quickly stepped in and performed the Heimlich maneuver, which dislodged the food from Stocking’s airway. Stocking expressed gratitude to Young, and Young subsequently petitioned the Department of Corrections to have his sentence reduced.

A state law first passed in 1982 allowed the director of the Department of Corrections to reduce by as much as one year the sentence of a prisoner who performed a heroic act in a life-threatening situation or who “provided exceptional assistance in maintaining the safety and security of the prison.”

The Department of Corrections determined that Young could not benefit from the law because he had been sentenced under the three-strikes law, which has rules of its own for credit for good-time behavior. Young had previous convictions for burglary, forgery and driving under the influence.

Two lower courts agreed with the department that the three-strikes sentencing law precluded giving Young any reward for his behavior.

But the state Supreme Court said such an interpretation of the laws would “create a disincentive for Three Strikes prisoners who have reached their maximum credit limit” to perform an act of heroism behind bars.

“It is difficult to imagine that the Legislature intended to give all prisoners, except those Three Strike prisoners, an incentive to save another’s life,” Chin wrote in the decision, In re Young, S106706.

Unfortunately for Young, the ruling came too late. He was paroled in March last year. The court suggested in a footnote that the Department of Corrections might want to reduce Young’s parole time as a result of the ruling.

Margot Bach, a spokeswoman for the department, said it would review the decision and Young’s record to determine how much credit he should be awarded.

Neither Young nor his lawyer could be reached for comment.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Heather L. Bushman, who represented the department in the case, said she was uncertain how great an impact the ruling would have.

“This is a pretty extraordinary circumstance,” she said.