Oklahomas Truth-In-Sentencing laws and why wasn't it used?

QUESTION PRESENTED

1. Did Oklahoma's Truth-in-Sentencing Act/Laws originally mandate by Oklahoma House Bill #1213, cited as: Title 57, 0.S. Supp. 1997, 332.7., and now presently mandated by Okla horma House Bill #2286, cited as: Title 57, 0.S. Supp. 2018, 5 332.7., Clearly, impose an obligation and duty on the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board by the Oklathoma Legislature, to establish and administer a procedure for persons in the Custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections for a crime committed prior to July 1, 1998, for reconsideration of persons denied parole and procedure for determining what sentence a person eligible for parole consideration would have received pursuant to Section 6, 598, 599, 600 and 601, Chapter 133, O.S.L (1997) Applicable Matrix. According to precise Statutory Language "Shall" connoting a requirement imposing a mandatory duty, which should be reviewed pursuant to this Court's recent decision in Kingdomware, 579 U.S. At 136 S.Ct. At 1977 (Decided April 27, 2020) Reversed and Remanded.

Kingdomware Technologies Inc. vs U.S., 136 S.Ct 1969 (2016) (when a statute distinguishes between "May" and "Shall", it is generally clear that "Shall" imposes a mandatory duty)

QUESTION TO CONSIDER:

The question presented involves the interpretation of Oklahoma's Truth-in-Sentencing Act as established by House Bill #1213 and later amended by House Bill #2286. Specifically, it seeks to determine whether these laws impose a mandatory duty on the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board to create and implement procedures for reconsidering parole for individuals incarcerated for crimes committed before July 1, 1998.

The key aspects to consider include:

1. **Statutory Language**: The use of "shall" in the statutes implies a mandatory obligation. This language is crucial in determining whether the Oklahoma Legislature intended to impose a duty on the Pardon and Parole Board.

2. **Legislative Intent**: Understanding the intent behind the Truth-in-Sentencing laws will help clarify whether the Board is required to establish the procedures outlined in your question. Legislative history, debates, and documents may provide insights into this intent.

3. **Relevant Case Law**: The reference to the Kingdomware case underscores the importance of interpreting statutory language consistently and adhering to established legal standards. The decision in Kingdomware may provide precedent for how this type of statutory obligation is treated in courts.

4. **Procedures Established**: It's important to analyze the specific procedures the Pardon and Parole Board has implemented (or failed to implement) in light of these statutory requirements.

In conclusion, the inquiry revolves around the interpretation of the statutory language and legislative intent, which may ultimately require a legal analysis or court ruling to clarify the obligations imposed on the Pardon and Parole Board.