Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 10 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 1879,1879 |
| Citation | 140 Md. App. 445,780 A.2d 1199 |
| Parties | Ramarro Lee SMITH, v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Ramarro L. Smith, Jessup, for appellant.
Karl A. Pothier, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Submitted before MURPHY, C.J., HOLLANDER, and ADKINS, JJ. ADKINS, Judge.
In this appeal, we review another dispute regarding an inmate's eligibility for diminution credits—this time for "special project" credits. The Secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (the "Secretary"), and the Commissioner (the "Commissioner") of the Division of Correction (collectively, the "DOC") have denied appellant Ramarro Lee Smith, an inmate in DOC custody, "special project" credits that he claims he earned during his incarceration by "double celling" (i.e., being confined in a cell with another inmate). The Circuit Court for Baltimore City denied Smith's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, without stating its reasons for doing so.1 This Court granted Smith's application for leave to appeal. He presents four questions, which collectively ask whether the hearing court erred in denying appellant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. We conclude that it did, reverse the judgment, and remand for a determination of whether appellant is entitled to double celling credits and, consequently, to an earlier mandatory release date.
On September 17, 1982, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County sentenced Smith to thirty years incarceration for second degree murder (the "murder sentence"). This sentence began on June 10, 1977. The DOC calculated the maximum expiration date for the murder sentence to be June 10, 2007. See COMAR 12.02.06.01B(9) ("Maximum expiration date" is defined as "the date computed by adding an inmate's total sentence length to the beginning date of the first sentence with the earliest start date which is part of the inmate's then current term of confinement").
On January 5, 1989, Smith was paroled. Approximately ten months later, on November 3, 1989, the Maryland Parole Commission issued a parole violation warrant, alleging that it had reasonable cause to believe that Smith had violated the conditions of his parole. At a parole violation/revocation hearing on March 7, 1990, Smith's parole was revoked. By that time, Smith had been on parole for 373 days. The parole commissioner allowed him street time credit for a portion of that time—nine months, or 273 days. See Md. Code (1999), § 7-401(d)(1) of the Correctional Services Article2 (upon revocation of parole, "the inmate shall serve the remainder of the sentence originally imposed unless the commissioner hearing the parole revocation, in the commissioner's discretion, grants credit for time between release on parole and revocation of parole"). On January 13, 1990, Smith was returned to the DOC, which recalculated his maximum term of confinement date to be September 18, 2007.
Following Smith's return to the DOC, he was convicted of a robbery he committed while he was on parole. On May 29, 1990, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County sentenced him to a five-year term (the "robbery sentence"), to be served consecutively to the murder sentence. As a result, the DOC revised Smith's confinement date to September 18, 2012.
During his incarceration, Smith has earned good conduct, special project, and industrial credits. At some unknown point during his incarceration, Smith began to double cell.3 The DOC declined to give Smith any special project credits for double celling.
We begin with a review of diminution credits. "Diminution credits can be earned by inmates to reduce the lengths of their confinements." Frost v. State, 336 Md. 125, 128, 647 A.2d 106 (1994). Inmates may earn good conduct credits, work or industrial credits, education credits, and special project credits. See §§ 3-702 to 3-707. Generally, an inmate may earn up to five credits in each category per month. Id. In the case of special project credits, however, an inmate may earn up to ten credits each month. The maximum number of diminution credits that an inmate may earn monthly is capped at 20 days. See § 3-708.
The special project credits at issue in this appeal can be earned only "in those special selected work projects or other special programs designated by the Commissioner and approved by the Secretary." § 3-707(a). Under DOC regulations, inmates may earn diminution credits for participating in "special projects" established by the Commissioner and Secretary. The DOC regulations state that an inmate who is double celled, and who otherwise "meets the eligibility criteria" established for these credits, "is in a special project...." COMAR 12.02.06.05N(1). There are, however, some specific exclusions that make certain inmates ineligible for double celling credits. These exclusions cover, inter alia, "an inmate who is serving a ... [s]entence for murder...." Id. Thus, an inmate may earn double celling credits only for certain "eligible" sentences.
By earning diminution credits, an inmate may earn the right to be released on a date much earlier than that designated by his or her original term of confinement. See Frost, 336 Md. at 128,
647 A.2d 106. "Upon accumulating sufficient credits to earn entitlement to release, the inmate is deemed released under `[m]andatory supervision.' " Id. Mandatory supervision is "a conditional release from confinement" granted to an inmate who "has served the term or terms, less diminution credit awarded...." § 7-501(3).
We turn now to Smith's complaint that he has earned double celling credits that the DOC has refused to award him.
Smith contends that the hearing court erred by failing to order the DOC to award him special project credits for double celling during his robbery sentence. He claims that his 30 year murder sentence "reached and exceeded its `Mandatory Supervision Release' date in approximately February/March of 1998, based upon the diminution credit days earned up to that time." Since that time, Smith complains, he has been serving his consecutive five-year robbery sentence without collecting any diminution credits for double celling.
The DOC counters that Smith is not eligible for double celling credits because "[he] is serving a term of confinement that includes a sentence for second degree murder," which is an ineligible sentence under the regulations. The DOC posits that applying credits against an inmate's sentence, rather than against the inmate's entire term of confinement, conflicts with section 3-702, which provides that inmates may be "entitled to a diminution of [their] term of confinement," rather than a diminution of their "sentence." (Emphasis added.) It argues that Smith's "suggestion that the DOC should apply allowed diminution of confinement credits to individual sentences contained within his term of confinement rather than to the term itself is proscribed" by section 3-702.
The question we must decide, then, is whether an inmate may be eligible for double celling credits when his single "term of confinement" encompasses multiple, consecutive sentences, one of which the DOC has defined as an "ineligible" sentence and the other an "eligible" sentence. If, as the DOC argues, double celling credits are not available during any term of confinement that includes a sentence for murder (or, presumably, for any other ineligible sentence), then Smith is not entitled to any credits. If, as Smith argues, double celling credits may be available for that portion of a term of confinement representing the inmate's consecutive "eligible" sentence, then he may be entitled to double celling credits.
We begin by reviewing the statutes and regulations governing the double celling credits at issue here. The legislature mandated in section 3-702 that "an inmate committed to the custody of the Commissioner [of Correction] is entitled to a diminution of the inmate's term of confinement as provided under this subtitle." "Term of confinement" is defined as:
Special project credits are authorized under section 3-707, which states in relevant part:
In addition to any other deductions allowed under this subtitle, an inmate may be allowed a deduction of up to 10 days from the inmate's term of confinement for each calendar month during which the inmate manifests satisfactory progress in those special selected work projects or other special programs designated by the Commissioner and approved by the Secretary.
The Secretary and Commissioner have designated double celling as a special project, by adopting regulations providing that a double celled inmate serving what we shall refer to as an "eligible" sentence "is in a special project."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Danaher v. Dept. of Labor
...to follow such Administrative Procedures when taking an action, then the agency's action is invalid. Recently, in Smith v. State, 140 Md.App. 445, 780 A.2d 1199 (2001), we reiterated that "`[a]n agency of the government must scrupulously observe rules, regulations or procedures which it has......
-
Public Safety v. Demby
...to receive those credits in the future. This former COMAR regulation was analyzed by the Court of Special Appeals in Smith v. State, 140 Md.App. 445, 780 A.2d 1199 (2001). Ramarro Smith was an inmate in DOC custody at the time the Court of Special Appeals rendered its decision. He was denie......
-
Pollock v. Patuxent Institution Board of Review
...Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, including the Department of Corrections ("DOC"). See, e.g., Smith v. State, 140 Md.App. 445, 462, 780 A.2d 1199 (2001)(DOC "was bound by its regulation" governing eligibility of inmates for "double celling" diminution credits); Hopkins,......
-
Oltman v. Board of Physicians
...weight and deference"). "The same principles apply to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation." Smith v. State, 140 Md. App. 445, 454-55, 780 A.2d 1199 (2001). In light of these principles, we hold that the Board did not err in concluding that appellant was not entitled to a CRC; t......