50 [84 O p. Att’y CORRECTI ONS C RIMIN AL L AW S ENTENCI NG

) C OMPUTATI ON OF G OOD C ONDUCT C REDITS TO D ETERMINE M ANDATORY R ELEASE D ATE FOR I NMATES

February 16, 1999

TheHon or abl

e Stu ar t O. Si mms Secr etary o

f Dep artm ent of P ublic Safetyand Correcti onal Servi ces You have re q uested our opinion conc erning t

he computati on of good-cond uct cre dits for inmat es in l ight of a recent tri logy of dec ision s on that t opi c by th e C our t of A ppe als.
In our o pinion the fo llow ing p rin ciple s should gui de the computati on of good-conduct credit s bythe Divis ion of Correct ion (“DO C”): 1. As a generalrule, an inma te sub ject to m ultiple sentence s serves a singl e term of

confinement t

hat begi ns on the first dayof the sentence that begins earli estand ends on the last day of t he sentenc e that ends las t . Howev er, in cert ain circumstances, sent ences must be consider ed separat ely for purpose s of computing good-conduct cred its. 2. For all s entences imposed before Octob er 1 , 1 992, an inma te is ent itl ed to good-conduc t cr edi ts at the rat e of 5 days per month. 3. For all s entences imposed on orafter October 1, 1992, so long as none of thos e sentenc es is for a crime of vi olence or a drug offense as descr ibed in t he Annotated Code of Maryland, Articl e 27, §700(d )(2), an inm ate is entitled to goo d-co ndu ct cred its at the ra te of 10 days per mon th. T his i s true even if t he inmate’ s ter

m of co nfinementinclude s sente nces imposed bef ore October 1, 1992, fo r violent cri mes or drug offenses. 4. For all s entences imposed on or aft erOctober 1, 199 2, if atleast one of those s entences is for a crime of vi olenc e or a dru gGen. 50] 51 offense as described in Article 27, §7 00(d)(2), an inmate i s enti tled to good-conduct

credit s at t

he rate of 5 days per month. 5. If a sentence is i mposed on or afte r October 1, 1996, for a crime committed while the defendant was on parole and

paro le is revoked, good-conduct c redit s earned prior t o the d efenda nt’s relea s e on p aro le m ay no t be a ppl ied to the c urre nt ter m o f co nfin em ent. In th is re ga rd , w e agree with the advi ce prev iously pro vided to you by Assist ant Attor

ney GeneralAlan D. Eason.

I Com putation of Go od-C ondu ct Cre dits A. Dim inutio n C redits An inmate i ncarcer ated i n the State correc tion al sy stem may earn a varie ty of cred its that r ed uce the l ength of hi s incar cerat ion. Th ere are four t

ypes of diminut ion credits: good-conduct, work, educ ationa l, and specia l proj ects. Annotated Code o f Mar yl and, Article 27, § 700 (d)-( h). G ood -conduct c redit s are uni que in that they are deduct ed in adva nce f rom the inm ate’s term of co nfine men t, appa rently on the optimisti c assumpti on that t he inmate wil l indee d exhib itgood conductdurin g the c ourse of h is con finem ent. A rticle 27, §700(d ). If an inmat e violates appl icabl e rules of discipline, the DOC may rev oke a ll or part o f th e good-co nduct cre dits that have been ad vanced to the inmate. A rticle 27, §700(g ). An inma te can e ar n a n a gg re ga te m ax im um of up to 20 da ys credit each mo nth. A rticle 27, §70 0( i) . A n inmate who is release d prior to the expi rati on of the full t erm of his s entences , as a r esult of g ood-c onductcredits and oth er deduc tions, is on “ma ndatory supervi sion”

)or conditional r elease from impr isonm ent. A rticle 41, §4-5 01(1 3). M anda to ry supervi sion re lease i s distinct f rom “pa role ,” which is another form of conditional rel ease granted at the di s creti on of the Maryl and Parole Commissi on. Arti cle 41, §§4- 501(5), 4-504. A person on mandator y supe rvisi on i s subject to alllaws, regulations, and condit ions ap pli cable t o parolee s. Art icle 41, §4- 612(c). A p erson wh o vio lates th e c onditions of mand atory52 [84 O p. Att’y

1 The person may a

lso receive “street time” credits for time spent out of prison prior to return to prison as a result of a violation of the conditions of mandatory super vision release. Article 41, §4-511(d). supervi sionis subj ect t o revocat ion of good-conduc t cr edits a nd retur n to pri son for the remainder of his se ntence. 1
B. 1992 Amendm ent In 199 2, the Legis lature made a signi ficant change in t

he manner in which good-conduct credit s are cal culat ed. Chapter 588, Laws of M arylan d 19 92, codified at Article 27, §7 00(d)( 2)- (3). Under prior

law, i nmates were ent itl ed to 5 day s of good-conduct credits f or each m onth of a t erm of confinement . The 1992 amendment increa sed th e rate to 10 da ys of good-conduct credit s per month; however, if

the te rm of confinement include d a sentenc e for a crim e of

vio lenc e or certa in d rug offens es, good-co ndu ct cred its wo uld on ly be awa rde d at th e rate of 5 days p er m ont h. Id . The legis lati on specifi ed that the new meth od o f com putatio n app lied to “a te rm o f co nfin em ent im pos ed o n or afte r O ctob er 1 , 199 2.” The applic ation of

the phras e “ter

m of confinemen t” has bedevil ed tho se w ho must const rue thi s stat

ute in l ight of t

he 1992 amen dm ent. The statutory de finition of the phra se ap pears to b e stra ightfor

ward: (a) In th is sec tion , “ term of co nfine men t” means: (1) The le ngth of the sent ence fora singl e sentenc e; or (2) The peri od from the fi rst dayo f the sentence begi nning first t hrough the last day of the senten ce ending last for: (i) Concurrent sentences; (ii) Partially concurrent sent ences; (ii i) Consecutive sent ences; or (iv) A combination of con current and con sec utiv e se nten ces .Gen. 50] 53 Article 27, §700(a) . Thus, a ccording to the literallangua ge of the stat ute, an in mate serves a si ngle te rm of confinement that may consistof

se ve ra l se nt en ce s ru nn in g c on cu rre nt ly o r c on se cu tiv ely. The 1992 law did not change this defini tion. On i ts face, the phrase “t erm of confinemen t” appears t o encompass all s entences being ser ved by an inmate, eve n if there are mu ltiple sentence s imposed on di fferent dates. However, the effective date provi sion of t he 1992 amen dme nt concer ning the computati on of good-conduct credits is keyed to the date the “term of confinement” was “imposed”

)suggesting the po ssibility that a n inma te may simultaneousl y serve m ultiple term s of c onf inem ent w ith differe nt date s of im positio n. Th is is mo re than an ac adem ic questi on whe n an inmate i s serving sentence s imposed befor e and after the critica l date of October 1, 1992. On e attem pting to give a sensib le c onstru ction to the statu te mu st elect eith er to ag greg ate sentence s and assi gn a singl e date of i mpo sit ion to the a ggre gate term or recogni ze multiple dat es of imposi tion, in appar ent contradi ctionof the literal definition o f “term of co nfine men t.” Th is choice has u nderst andably generated some confusion among those who com pute good-conduct credits. As Judg e Wilner

has sum mar iz ed t

he p ro bl em: The 1992 law immediat ely crea te d a dist incti on between inmate s serving one or more sentence s for a crime of v iolence or a lis teddrug off

ense and inmat es incarcerat ed forother crimes. Tha t, when coupled with t he prosp ectivity language of Secti on 2 of the A ct, cre a teda dou ble pro blem : it broug ht into questi on whether an i nmate serving a sentence imposedprior to Oc tober 1 , 1992 as w ell as a sentence imposed aft er that date was ent itl ed to th e addit ional f

ive day s a month credit on the late r sent ence and, eve n if such aninma te ordin arily wo uld g et the a ddition al cred it, it rais ed the questi on whether that would be the case if the earli er sent ence was for a viol ent or lis ted drug offe nse. Henderson v. Secre tary of Public Saf

ety and Correctional

Services , 351 M d. 438, 718 A.2d 1 150, 115 2 (1998 ).54 [84 O p. Att’y

2 Inits decision, the Court also consider ed cert ain issue s not dire ctly pertinent to this opinion

) whether the plaintiff inmates could use a habeas corpus petition to ch allen ge the calculation of good-c onduct credits and whether “street time credits” awar ded by the Parole Commission should be deducted from good-conduct credits. In thre e rece nt cases , the C ourt o f A ppea ls has a ttemp ted to provide defini tive g uidance. In the first two cases, the C ourt unan imou sly adopted an interp retatio n of the st atute . When that approach led to unanticipated conse quences , th e Court in its most recent case modifi ed that

inter pretation in a divided deci sion.
II Re cent De cision s of th e C our t of A ppe als A. Maryland House of Correction v. Fiel ds The Co urt of A ppea ls firs t confront ed the anomali es creat ed by the 1992 amendment in three case s consoli dated on appeali n Maryland

House of Correct ion v. Fields , 348 M d. 2 45, 7 03 A.2d 167 (1997). Each of the case s before t he Court in Fields involved inmat es who had been releas ed on mandatory supervi sion f

o r sentence s i m posed pri or to t he effective date of t he 1992 amendm ent. In each case, as a result of subsequent convictions, good-conductc redi ts were r escinded and mandatory supervi sion release was rev oked. A s a result, additional sentenc es were imposed and, in some cases, suspended sent ences were reimposed, aft er the effective date of t

he 1992 amendment that acceler ated the award of good-conductcredit s. On the theory that t he sentenc es awarded aft er October1, 1992, w ere part of a singl e term of confinement imposed prior to th e ef

fec ti ve d at e of

th e 19 92 amendme nt, th e DOC aggregat ed the sent ences imposed be fore and aft er th at dat e and calcul atedgoo d-co ndu ct cred its at t he “ol d rate” of 5 days per mo nth

. The Court rej ected t

he DOC ’s methodof co mp utation and h eld that, for purpose s of computing good- conduct cr edits under the amended law, sent ences imposed be fore October 1, 1992, were to be treat ed separat ely

from those i mposed after that date. 2 It noted that, underthe DOC’s method of ag greg ati ng sentence s, a per son sentence d after

the effective date of the 1 992 law for a non -violen t,Gen. 50] 55 non-drug crime would not obtain t he benefit

of the amendmen t ’s new rate of

10 days good-conduct c redit per month. The Cou rt conceded that the statute sugge sted that a prisoner served asingle “term of c onfinem ent,” but delved i nto the l egisl ative hist oryof the am end me nt to sup por t a co ntra ry inter pre tatio n of the s tatut e. The Court quoted a

billanaly sis of t

he 1992 amen dmen t prepared for the Ge neral A ssem bly that indicat ed that the purpos e of the amendm ent was t o m ove non-viol ent offender s through t he prisonsys tem at a fa ster pace in or der to r educe ov ercrowdi ng. Spon sors of the ame ndm ent ap paren tlyunderst ood that the new rate forgood-conduct c redi ts wo uld apply to any one sentenc ed on or after the effective date of

the ame ndm ent. 348 M d. at 263. In additi on, the Cou rt also noted that the effective date p ro visi on ha d been added to the bill t o meet the DOC’s concern t hat the amendment otherw ise w ould have requ ired th e retr oacti ve computati on of credi ts for inmates in pr ison a t the time of its pas sag e. Id . at 26 4. The Co urt then tu rned to the defi niti on of “term of con fine me nt,” which predat ed the 1992 amen dm ent. The C ourt pointed out that the defi niti on had be e n designed t o ensure t hat persons servi ng more than one sentence at a t ime would not re ceive good-conductcred its fo r mo re th an o ne s ente nce at a tim e. I d . at 264-65. A “c ommo nsensic al” const ructi on of that

phrase di d not requi re aggregat ion of al l sent ences ser ved by an inmate for pur poses of computing goo d-c ond uct c red its un der the 1 992 am end me nt. Id

. at 265-66. Finally, the Court a

pplied the “ru le of leni ty ,” which re quires that any ambi guity

in penalstat

utes be cons trued aga ins t t he S tate and in favor of t

he defendant. 348 Md. at 2 67 -6 8. A cc or di ng ly, it held that an inmat e should e arn good-conduct credit s at t

he rate of five days per mo nth fo r the se ntenc es that w ere im pose d prio r to October1, 199 2 and at the ra te of 10 days per month for s entences imposedon or afte r that date for non-viol ent, non-drug offens es. Id

. at 26 8-6 9. B. Beshears v. Wickes A sli ghtly

differe nt permutation pr esented itself in the Co urt’s nextencounter

with the s tatute in Beshears v. Wickes , 34 9 Md. 1, 706 A.2d 608 (1998). That case involved an i nmate who had been56 [84 O p. Att’y

sentence d for a viol ent crime prior t o the effective date of the 1992 amendment and who, after relea se on mandatory

supe rvi sion, was convict ed and sentenc ed fo r a non-vi olent of fense aft er October 1, 1992. Th e q uestion befo re the C ourt w as w hethe r the inm ate shou ld recei ve go od-conduct c redit s with re spect t o the latternonviolent offense at the rate of 10 days per mo nth for n on-vi olent offenses under the 1992 amendment or whether he would be limi ted to 5 d ays per m onth for tha t senten ce be caus e it wa s part o f a sing le term of c onfinem ent in clud ing a vio lent o ffe nse . The Court rei terat ed its reason ing in Fields and held that the two sentence s constituted “ separat e terms of c onfinement. ” 349 Md. at8. Accordingly, Wickes cou ld rece ive the benefit of the 1992 amendmen t for his subsequent non-viol ent offense and earn goodcondu ctcredit s at t

he post- 1992 rate of

10 days per month w it h resp ect to that s ente nce . The Court explained the basi s of it s holdi ng:

In Fields , w e s pe cifica lly r eject ed “the notionthat all se nte nces that ove rlap or run cons ecutiv ely must aggregate forall purposes to a singl e te rm o f c onf in eme nt .” Tod ay , w e expand on this i n co ncluding t hat “t erm of confinem ent” does not aggr egate se ntences imp osed befo re and after th e defenda nt i s relea sed on manda to ry sup erv ision

. Where a defendan t is release d on mandator y su pe rvision and later co mm its and is sentence d

for a ne w crime, we hold t hat the new sentenceand the old s entence reimposed upon revo catio n of mandatory supe rvision r elease do not aggregate to for m one ter m o

f confine mentfor

the purpose of §700. The rate atwh i ch an inmate i s awarded good-conduct credits should not

depend o n t he Maryland Paro le Co mm issio n’ s decis ion to r evoke mandatory su pervis ion rel ease for a prior convict ion based on a s ubsequent offe nse. 349 Md. at 9 (emphasis added; ci tati ons omitt ed). Thi s elabor ation of the rationale for the de cisi on in Wickes resul ted in c onsequences appa rently unin tende d by a m ajority of th e Co urt.Gen. 50] 57 C. Depart

mentof Public Saf

ety and Correct

ion al Servi

ces v. Henderson Following the d ecis ions i n Wickes and Fields , t he DOC recal culat ed the sent ences of more t han 2 000 i nmates ser ving mu ltiple senten ces to d eseg regate sentence s in accordance with t he apparent direction of the Wickes opinion. For some inm ates thi s recal culat ion resul ted in a longer period of c onfinem ent. In Secretary of

Public Saf

ety and Correctional

Services v. Henderson , 351 Md. 438, 718 A.2d 11 5 0 (1998), one such inmat e chall enged this method of c omputati on and the Court consider ed the ramifi cati ons of the l anguage in i ts opi nion in Wickes

. Henderson was co nv icte d of a viol ent offense in 1975 for which he recei ved a sente nce of 20 ye ars i mprisonment. He was relea sed on parole t

wice and ret

urned to custody

on both occasi ons forparole vi olati ons. His s econd parole r evocati on was the res ult of a 1994 convict ion on a drug viol ation f or which he rec eived a 10- year sentence. In ac cordanc e with its pre vi ous pract ice of aggregat ing senten ces an d dim inution credits, th e D OC orig inal ly comp utedHenderson’s mandat oryrelea se date by aggregat ing hi s 1975 and 1994 sentenc es an d then subtra cting t he tota l dimi nution credit s to ar

rive at a mandatory

relea se date of

July 7, 1997. Some months after

He nder son’s release , the C ourt o f A ppea ls issued its opinion in the Wickes case, in which it s tate d that “ [w]hen a defendant i s rel easedon man datory su perv ision an d later c om mits

... a new crime, t

he new sentence and

the o ld sent ence.. .do not aggr egate to form one term of c onfinem ent for th e pu rpo se o f §7 00.” Wickes , 349 Md. at 9. Fol lowing the a pparent di ctat e of that holding, DO C computed separ ate re lease dates for each of Hen derson’s sentences a nd arri ved at a m anda tory release date in Februa ry2002 for the more recent sentence . As a result, Henders on w as ar re ste d a nd re tu rn ed to cu sto dy. Itis notab le that, unlike the case s in Fields and Wickes , there was no questi on whether Hendersonwas eligible for good- conduct credits at the “new rate” of 10 day s per month under the 1992 ame ndm ent. Both of Henderson’s convict ions were fo r d rug or violent crime s. Ac cord ingly, und er any rea din g of the st atute , he was limi tedto 5 d ays per month good-cond uct credits. Nevertheless, those decisions resu lted in the termination o f his man datory su pe rv isi on re lea se an d h is r etu rn to cu sto dy.58 [84 O p. Att’y
Hen ders on fi led a habe as corpus p etition. The circuit court granted the pet iti on on constituti onal grounds, hold ing tha t the Sta te had denie d him due process of law and had viol ated the proscription again st ex po st facto pun ishm ents

. On appeal, the Court of Appeals decl ine d to reac h the consti tuti onal questions, but ins tead re fined i ts const ructi on of §700 to affirm t

he circ uit cour

t. I n a 4-3 deci sion, the C ourt disavowed the broad langua ge in Wick es that s entences imposed for new convict ion s shoul d not be aggre gated with those for prior convictions. Wri ting for the maj orit y, Judge Wilner reasoned that the res ults in both Fields and Wickes were just ifie d on a narrower ground th an a g en er al ru le ag ai ns t a ggreg at io n of se nt en ce s. He sum mariz ed tha t narro we r justifica tion:

The predominant

reasoni ng in both ca ses was that, thro ugh the en actm ent of Ch . 588 in 1992, the GeneralAssembly directe d that inmates be all ow ed t en days a month good conductcr edi t a gainst

se nt enc es imp osed on or after October1, 1992 for non-vi olent, nondrug of fens es, and t

hat, to the e xtent t

hat the device of a singl e term of confinem ent w ould frustra te tha t direction, an ambiguit y was creat ed

)an ambiguit

y t hat the rule of l enit y requir ed be resolved in favor of the i nmate. 718 A.2d at 1157. Judge Wilner not ed that aggregat ion of sentenc es in He nder son’s case d id not lea d to an y ambig uity and that there was therefore no need to cal culat e the di minuti on credits and m andatory release dates separately for hi s two sente nces. He acknowledged that, in recomput ing good-conduct credit s separately

for Hen derson’s sentence s, t he DOC had been m isled by the “second ary just ific ation” for the Court ’s deci sion i n Wickes

. Id.Gen. 50] 59

3 Judge Chasanow dissented from the majority opinion’s restriction of the rationale of the Fields and Wickes decisions, but concurred in the decisionto grant habeas corpus relief to He nderson. He would have affirmed the circ uit court on the alternative ground that Hend

erson’s arrest followingrecomputation of his mandatory release date had

been accomplished

through u

nc onstitutional and improper procedures. 718 A.2d at 1161. Judge Chasanow’s opinion was joined by Chief Judge Bell an d J ud ge Ro do ws ky. In a concurring and disse nting opinion, 3 Ju dge Cha sanow , the author of b oth the Fields and the Wickes opin ions, d isagre ed sh arply with th e m ajo rity’ s reaso ning. The concur ring and di ssenting opinionassert ed that “ the method of calc ulati on described in Wickes that lets non-viol ent offender s out sooner , but a lso k eeps parol eviolating of

fe nde rs inlo nge r, is a d es ir ab le re su lt .” 718 A. 2d at 1158. Judge Chasanow suggeste d that an inter pretation of the 1992 amendment wh ich be nefitted non -violen t parole violators but unde r which violent

parole vi olator s fared worse was mo re con sistent w ith legis lative intent in am endin g §7 00. H e argu ed tha t the m ajority opinionatte mpted to accommodate t wo conflict ing const

ructi ons of “term of co nfine men t” with the result that an inmate l ike Henderson had “a ki nd of savings a ccount where t hey can bank sentenc ing diminut ion credits” against sentence s forfuture c rimes. 718 A.2d at 1 16 0. He noted that the Parol e Commission’s revocat ion of Hen derson’s parole for his s ubsequ ent convi ction ha d the paradoxic al effect

of decre asing , rather th an inc reasin g, his time in custody when the two sentence s were aggregat ed as required by t he ma jority d ecis ion

. The concurring and disse nting opinion als o reli ed on a 1996 amendment to §7 00 to supp ort its me thod of co mp utation in Hen derson’s case. Chapt er 567, Laws of Mary land 1996. That legislation added subsection k which provides:

(1) Exc ept as p rovid ed in paragraph ( 2) of this subs ection , if

an inmate who is convi cted and sentence d to impri sonment for a cr ime com mitt ed while on parol e and the par ole i s revoked, diminut ion credits that were al lowed prior to the inm ate’s rele ase o n par ole may not be applied tow ard the inm ate’s term of confi nement upon retur n to the Divi sion of Correcti on.60 [84 O p. Att’y (2) Para grap h (1) o f this su bsec tio n d oes not apply

to an y diminut ion credits ear ned following the inmat e’s re turn t o the Divis ion of Correct ion. Articl e 27 , §700 (k). Th e majority opinio n resp ond ed tha t this subsect ion wa s irreleva nt to H ende rson’s case it as it app lied on ly to sentence s imp ose d af

ter O ctob er 1 , 1 99 6 and there fore did not pertain to Henderson’ s sit uation. 718 A.2d at115 7 n. 3. Of course, that secti on will fi gure in t

he computati on o f mandatory relea se dates in cases involving sentence s imposed aft er it s effect ive dat e. III Discussi on We cann ot claim to provi de any be tter guidance i n an Attorney Gen eral’s opinionto the co nstruc tion of this statute than th e efforts of the Court of

Appeals in i ts three rec entopini ons . Wh at we can do is atte mpt to di sti ll t

he holdings of those ca ses into pr acti cal gui delin es f

or th e co mp utati on o f se nten ces by the DO C. First, the defi niti on in §700(a) clear ly speaks of

a “term of confinem ent” in the singul ar and indi cates t hat a t erm of confinementconsist s of allsentence s being se rved by the inmat e. The majorit

y opi nion in Henderson also mak es clea r that no rmally all sentenc es that

are part

of a term of confinement ar e to be aggregat ed for purpose s of com puting the inm ate’s mand atory release date. Thus, except t o the ext entthat r ule of l enity

or another statute re qu ires disaggr egati on of sentenc es for computation of good-conductcre dits, a ll sentences being served by an inm ate are part of asingl e term of confinement with a s ingle date of re lease. The title to Chapt er 588, Laws of Maryland 1 992, demonstrates that, in enact ing the 1992 ame ndm ent to §70 0, the G enera l Ass emb ly soughtto expand the avail ability of goo d-co ndu ct cred its for inmat es convict ed of non-violent, non-drug offenses for which se nte nce is imposedon or afte r October 1, 199 2. H ow ever, th is intentio n w ould be thwarted i f an inmate i s also s erving a s entence i mposed prior to October1, 1992, and the i nm ate’s sentence s are combine d into a single term of conf

inement wit

h a combined “dat e of imposition” prio r to October 1, 1992. When necessar y t o give effect

to the Legislatur e’s intention t o allow increased good-conduct credits,Gen. 50] 61 undert he rule o f leni ty , the DOC must compute good- conduct credits separa t ely

for sent ences imposed be fore October 1, 1992 fro m th ose imp ose d on or a fter Oc tob er 1 , 199 2. Thus, as in Fields , an inm ate servi ng sentence s fornon -violen t, non-drug offens es imposed bot h before and aft erthe effective date of the amendment i s enti tled to good-conduct c redit s at t he rate of 5 da ys per m onth for the pr e-amendment sent ences andat the n ew rate of 10 days per month for post-amendme nt sentences. A pre-amen dm ent sentence for a drug offe nse or a crime of violenc e does not effe ctthe computation of good-conduct c redit s for a post-amendment sen tenc e fo r a n on- dru g, no n-v iolen t offens e. In such a case, as in Wickes , the inmate ear ns good-conduct

credit s for the earli er offense at the rate of 5 day s permonth and for the l atte r offense at the new rate of 10 days per month. Of course, under the plain terms of

the 1992 amendment, a post- amendment sentenc e for a crime of violence or list e d dru g offens e w ill rende r the inm ate ineligib le fo r the new more g enerous ra te and the inm ate will earn goo d-c ond uct c red its at th e old rate o f 5 d ays pe r mo nth

. When, as in Henderson , the post-amendment sentence is fo r a lis teddrug offense or a cr ime of v iolenc e and there is n o po ssibility that the inmat e could re ceive t he benefit

of the higher r ate of goodconductcre dits , the n the sent ences shoul d be aggregat ed for com put ation of g ood -co ndu ct cre dits. Fi na lly, there i s an importan t qualif ication if the in mate is servi ng a sentenc e imposed aft er October 1, 199 6 f ora crime committed

while he was on p arole and his par ole is revoked. In such a cas e, h e w ill not rec eive th e ben efit of dimin ution c redits ( including good-conduct c redit s) ear ned prior

to his relea se o n parole. The cases and the st atute thus sugges t that the DOC ask the following questi ons when computing good-conduc t credits for an inma te servin g sen tence s imp osed both before and aft erOctober 1, 1992: A. Are anyof the sent ences for drug offens es or cr imes

of violenc e, as des cribed

in Article 27, §7 00(d)(2)?62 [84 O p. Att’y
No

. ( Fields )

C Co mp ute good-cond u ct cred its sepa rately fors en tences imposed before and aft er October 1, 1992.

C Aw ard 5 d ays pe r month credit for sentence s impos edpr io r t o Oc tob er 1, 1992.

C Aw ard 10 days per month cre dit for sentence s imposedon or afte r October 1, 1992. Yes

. We re the s en tence( s) for dr ug offenses or crimes of violenc e imposed(1) befor e October 1, 1992, ( 2) on or aft er that date; or (3) bot

h? 1. Before October 1, 1992 ( Wickes ):

C Co mp ute goo d-co ndu ct c r edits separat el y for sent ences imposed before and aft er October 1, 1992.

C Aw ard 5 days p er mo nth cre dit for sentence s imposed p rior t o October 1, 1992.

C Aw ard 10 days per month cre d i t fors ente nces imposed on or after October 1, 1992. 2. On or after Octobe r 1, 1992:

C C om pute good-conduc t credits for sente nces imposed before and after

October 1, 199 2 in agg reg ate.

C Aw ard 5 d ays per m onth credit for allsentences.Gen. 50] 63 3. Bo th before a nd after O c tober 1, 1992 ( Henderson ):

C Co mp ute good-conductcredit s for sentence s imposed before an d afte r Oc tob er 1 , 199 2 in agg reg ate.

C Aw ard 5 days p er mo nth credit for all sentences. B. Is the inm ate servi ng a sentenc e imposed on or af ter October1, 1996 for a cr ime committ ed while he was on parole? No

.

C Compute as in A above. Yes.

C Co mp ute as in A above, but subtra ct goodconductcredit s earned prior t o relea se on parole. Wh ile the ou tline ab ove c over s the co mm on situ ations lik ely to be encounter ed by t

he DOC in the c omputati on of good-conduct credits, we are no mo re pres cient th an the Co urt of A ppea ls in foreseeing oth er p oss ible p erm utati ons that m ay aris e. However, the guiding principle that appe ars in all thre e of th e Co urt’s de cisions is that the 1992 amend men t w as inten ded to allow a mo re fav orab le computati on of good-conduct credit s forinmates who are sent enced fornon-drug, non-viol ent offense s after October1, 1992 and th at it was not meant ot

herwise t o alte r the method of computati on of goodconductcre dit s. Th e ou tcom e of a ny unan ticipated perm utation is likely t o be deter

mined by t

his principle

. IV Conclusion In sum mary, it is our opinion that recent decision s of the C ourt of Ap peals c onstru ing A rtic le 27 , §700, require that good-conduct credits be computed in accordance with the following principles:64 [84 O p. Att’y 1. As a generalrule, an inma te sub ject to multi ple sent ences serves a singl e term of confinement that begins on the fi rst day of t he sentence that

begins earlies t and ends on t he last dayof the sent ence that ends las t. However, in cert ain circumstances, sent ences must be consider ed separat ely for purpose s of com p uting good- conduct cred its. 2. For all sentenc es imposed befor e October 1, 1992, an inma te is ent itl ed to good- con duct cre dits at the rate of 5 days per month. 3. For all s entences imposed on or aft er October 1, 1992, so lon g as none of thos e sentenc es is f or a cri me of violence unde r o r a drug offe nse a s def

ined in Article 27, §7 00(d )(2), an inma te is entitledto goo d-co ndu ct credit s at t he rate of 10 days per month. This is true ev en if th e inm ate’s term of co nfin eme nt include s sentence s imposed before October 1, 19 92, fo r viol ent crimes or drug offenses. 4. For all s entences impo sed o n or a fter O ctobe r 1, 19 92, if atleast one of those s entences is for a crime of viole nc e or a drug offense as described in Arti cle 27, §700(d)(2) , an i nmate is e ntitled to good-conduct

credit s at t

he rate of 5 days per month. 5. If a sentenc e is i mposed on or afte r October 1, 1996, for a crime committed while the defendant was on p arole a nd p arole is revoked, good-conduct c redit s earned prior t o the d efenda nt’s relea s e on p aro le m ay no t be a ppl ied to the te rm o f co nfin em ent. J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral Ro bert N . Mc Do nald Chief Counsel Opinions and Advic e Editor’ s Note: The Co urt of A ppea ls subsequent ly addresse d the computati on of good conduct cr edits in Moats v . Scott , 358 M d. 59 3, 7 51 A .2 d 462 (2002) and Secr etary o f Pub lic Safetyand Correcti onalServices v. Hutchinson, 359 M d. 320, 753 A.2d 1 024 (20 00).