Preview:

HEADNOTE: State v. Frank G. Hall, No. 1230, September Term 1997

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONFINE HALL.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1230 September Term, 1997

STATE OF MARYLAND et al. v. FRANK G. HALL

Wenner, Salmon, Byrnes, JJ.

Opinion by Wenner, J. Dissenting Opinion by Salmon, J.

Filed: August 27, 1998

Appellants,

the

State

of

Maryland

(the

State),

and

the

Department of Corrections (DOC), appeal from summary judgment granted by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in favor of appellee, Frank G. Hall (Hall). Although we are presented with a

number of issues, we need address but two of them. I. Did the trial court err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment on the issue of false imprisonment? Did the trial court err in granting Earl Beshears's, (Warden of the Eastern Maryland Correctional Institution), motion for summary judgment despite having found that Hall had been falsely imprisoned?

II.

We shall answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative, and both affirm and reverse the judgment of the circuit court. Facts The facts are undisputed. On 17 September 1982, Hall was

convicted of child abuse and sentenced to a term of fifteen years. Having served slightly less than ten years, Hall was granted parole on 2 July 1992. Unfortunately for society, Hall is a recidivist.

On 30 September 1994, he was again charged with and convicted of child abuse, and sentenced to a term of seven years. As a result,

Hall's parole was revoked, and the unserved portion of his initial sentence was reinstated. Since only five years remained on the

unserved portion of his reinstated sentence, the revocation of his

-2parole did not extend his period of confinement. Nonetheless, the

appropriate calculation of his confinement credits arose.1 In October of 1992, the statute governing "good time" credits was revised, doubling the "good time" credits earned. however, applied only to those confined after 1 October 1992. This, When

Hall again became a guest of the State, it was to serve the sentence imposed for the offense committed while on parole.

Accordingly, his "good time" credits were calculated at the post1992 rate. Since the unserved portion of his first sentence had

been reinstated, the two sentences were, in effect, being served concurrently. Consequently, it was concluded that Hall's "good

time" credits should be calculated at the pre-1992 rate, because he was serving both pre- and post-1992 sentences. the reduction of Hall's "good time" credits. Dissatisfied with the manner in which his "good time" credits had been calculated, Hall filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming his "good time" credits had been miscalculated, entitling him to immediate release. The trial court agreed that his "good time" credits This resulted in

should have been calculated at the post-1992 rate,2 determined that

Diminution of confinement credits are commonly known as "good time" credits. Such credits are awarded for behavior deemed beneficial. Such credits may be earned from educational programs, special projects, and the like. Hall's accumulation of "good time" credits is here at issue. The circuit court was correct. In Beshears v. Wickes, 349 Md. 1, 706 A.2d 608 (1998), the Court of Appeals was confronted with a practically identical situation. The Court determined that one released on (continued...)
2

1

-3Hall had been deprived of his liberty without his consent for an additional 108 days, and ordered his immediate release. Upon his

release, Hall filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, charging the Warden with violating Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, pursuant to

Download State v. Hall.pdf

Maryland Law