Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 77 September Term, 1996 ___________________________________

MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION v. MERRILL FIELDS

___________________________________ Murphy, C.J., Wenner, Davis, JJ. ____________________________________ Opinion by Murphy, C.J. ____________________________________ Filed: December 27, 1996

In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, the Maryland House of Correction, appellant, presents the following questions for our review: I. Does the failure of an inmate either to raise an issue in an inmate grievance proceeding or to appeal an inmate grievance decision to the circuit court operate as a procedural bar to habeas corpus review of the issue? Did the legislature intend that an inmate whose term of confinement begins prior to October 1, 1992 have good conduct credits awarded to his full term of confinement at the rate applicable prior to that date?

II.

III. Where an inmate has been released from confinement on mandatory supervision release and is then re-incarcerated for violating the terms and conditions of that release, should the Division of Correction deduct one day of diminution credit for every day of "street credit" that has resulted from the original use of the diminution credit upon reincarceration? We answer yes to both of appellant's first two questions as phrased, but note that their resolution is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. To appellant's third question, we

answer no and therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTS On April 19, 1988, Merrill Fields, appellee, was convicted of daytime housebreaking and received a ten year sentence, with all but five years suspended. Appellee was subsequently given a

consecutive two year sentence for an unrelated violation of

probation.

At that point in time appellee's scheduled date of He was actually released, however,

release was August 17, 1994.

on May 8, 1992, because he earned 401 good conduct credits and 430 industrial/special project credits ("industrial credits"). According to the terms of his release, appellee was placed under mandatory supervision and was subject to the same conditions applicable to an individual on parole. Appellee did not comply with the terms of his early release. On February 2, 1994, while still under mandatory supervision, he was convicted of theft and given an eighteen month sentence. This new conviction triggered another unrelated violation of probation, for which he received a consecutive six month sentence. Thereafter, on May 17, 1994, appellee was ordered to

serve the five year portion of the 1988 daytime housebreaking sentence that had originally been suspended. At the conclusion of a revocation of parole hearing relating to that portion of the 1988 daytime housebreaking sentence that had not been suspended, the Maryland Parole Commission revoked appellee's mandatory supervision and rescinded all of his previously accumulated good conduct credits. At this point, the

balance of appellee's original seven year sentence was reinstated, less 641 days of "street credit" for the time appellee spent under mandatory supervision.1
1

Thereafter, when

Appellee makes no complaint about the sentences imposed in the circuit court. - 2 -

calculating appellee's new target release date, appellant subtracted the 641 mandatory supervision credits from the 831 credits appellee had earned before his early release (401 good conduct and 430 industrial credits), leaving a balance of 190 industrial credits. These remaining credits were applied to

appellee's new term of confinement along with prospective credits for future good behavior. The prospective credits, however, were As

applied at the rate of five good conduct credits per month.

per appellant's calculations, appellee's new term of confinement was shortened from May 17, 1999 to August 11, 1997. Dissatisfied with the adjustments that appellant had made, appellee filed a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office ("IGO"), arguing only that the prospective good conduct credits should have been applied at the rate of ten per month. Following

a hearing, the IGO agreed with appellee and issued an appropriate recommendation to the Secretary of Public Safety ("Secretary"). The Secretary, however, declined to accept the IGO's recommendation and denied appellee's grievance. Appellee then filed for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, arguing that he was entitled to immediate release because (1) prospective good conduct credits should have been applied at the rate of ten per month, rather than five, and (2) appellant lacked the authority to subtract mandatory supervision credits from previously accumulated good conduct and industrial credits. The Honorable Clifton J. Gordy

- 3 -

agreed with both of appellee's arguments and granted his petition. Judge Gordy then ordered appellant to credit appellee

with good conduct credits at the rate of ten per month, and with additional industrial credits as well. This appeal followed.

I. Appellant argues that appellee had not exhausted his administrative remedies, and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellee's habeas petition. disagree. Where the legislature "has provided a special form of remedy and has established a statutory procedure before an administrative agency for a special kind of case, a litigant must ordinarily pursue that form of remedy and not bypass the administrative official." (1982). Oxtoby v. McGowan, 294 Md. 83, 91 We

As a general rule, Md. Ann. Code art. 41,

Download Md. House of Corrections v. Fields.pdf

Maryland Law