Preview:

HEADNOTE: Milton Witherspoon v. Maryland Parole Commission, No. 2428, September Term, 2001 PAROLE ELIGIBILITY - Inmate serving a determinate sentence not entitled to parole consideration until he or she serves onefourth of term of confinement, notwithstanding potential "good conduct" credits.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2428 September Term, 2001

MILTON WITHERSPOON v. MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION

Kenney, Barbera, Alpert, Paul E. (Ret.,specially assigned), JJ. Opinion by Alpert, J. Filed: December 27, 2002

In late August of 2000, Milton Witherspoon, the appellant, began serving a 15-year prison sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. In October of 2001, appellant filed a

petition for writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, requesting that the court direct the Maryland Parole

Commission to conduct a parole hearing upon his completion of only about 16 months of his sentence. The court denied the

petition without a hearing, and appellant filed this appeal. ISSUE Appellant argues, in essence, that the trial court erred in failing to grant his petition for writ of mandamus, in that the Parole Commission is improperly refusing to consider his

diminution of confinement credits in determining the date on which his parole hearing should be held. We find no merit in

this argument and affirm the judgment of the trial court. FACTS Appellant began serving his 15-year sentence on August 27, 2000. On June 12, 2001, appellant, through counsel, sent a

letter to the Maryland Parole Commission expressing his opinion that he would become eligible for parole on or about December 12, 2001. Appellant pointed out that an inmate serving a determinate term of confinement is ordinarily eligible for parole after

serving one-fourth of that term of confinement.1 pointed out that "one fourth of 15 years is

He further 1,368 days."

Appellant observed that he had been awarded 899 good conduct days upon his commission to the custody of the Commissioner of

Correction. date for

He theorized that, in order to determine the proper his parole hearing, the Parole Commission should

subtract the 899 good conduct days from the 1,368 days that constituted one-fourth of his total sentence. It should then

conduct a hearing 469 days after his sentence began.2 Both the Parole Commission and the trial court flatly

rejected appellant's argument. DISCUSSION Appellant's argument is based on his reading of

Download Witherspoon v. Parole Comm..pdf

Maryland Law