8 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
C ORR E CT I ONS P AROLE C OMMI SS I ON

– P AROLE E L I GI B I L I T Y OF I NMATES S E RVI NG L I FE S ENTE NCES

J anuary25, 2001

M s
. Pa tr i c i a K. Cu s h wa C hai r, M ar yland P ar ol e C om m is s i on Y ou have a s ked for our opi ni on on t he par ol e el i gi bi l i t y of an i nm at e s er vi ng a “s t r ai ght ” l i fe s ent ence – t hati s , a s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t houtanypor ti o n suspe nded and w i t houtany pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tpar ol e. Speci fi cal l y , y ou have a s ked w hethert he par ol e e li g ibi l i t ydat e of s uch an i nm at e i s t o be adj us t ed byt he appl i cat i on of di m i nut i on of conf i nement cr edi t s ( “di m i nut i on cr edi t s ”) al l ow ed under A nnot at ed C ode of M ary l and, C or r ect i onal Ser vi ces A r t i cl e ( “C S”) , §3- 701 et s eq
. I n ouropi ni on, t he st atut e gover ni ng par ol e el i gi bi l i t yr equi r es th a t d im in u ti o n c re d its b e d e d u c ted in c o m p u tin g th e p a ro le el igibi l i t ydat e of a n i nm at e s er vi ng a s t r ai ghtl i fe s ent ence
. O rd in a rily , an in m a te se rv in g su c h a se n ten c e w ill b e c o m e e lig ib le forpar ol e consi der at i on i n 15 y ear s , as adj us t ed byanydi m i nut i on cr edi t s t o w hi ch the i nm at e i s ent i t l ed. I f t he i nm at e i s s er vi ng a l i fe s ent ence as a re s ul t of a fai l ed appl i cat i on for t he deat h penal t y , t he i nm at e ma y n o t be par ol ed for25 y ear s , as adj us t ed bydi m i nut i on c re d its. O f c o u rse , w h e th e r a n e lig ib le in m a te s h o u ld b e p a ro led is a mat t e rl e f

tt o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f

t h e Pa r o l e Commi s s i o n a nd, u lt im ately , the G o v ern o r.

I Backg r ound
A

. E lig ib ility f

o r P a ro le
Par ol e i s a condi t i onal r el eas e fr om confi nement gr ant ed byt he P aro le C o m m issi o n (t h e “ C o m m issi o n ”). C S § 7 -10 1 (i ). H o w ev er, an i nm at e s er vi ng a l i fe s ent ence m ayo n ly b e par ol ed w i t h t he ap p rov al of

the G o v ern o r. C S § 7 -30 1 (d)(4 ).G en. 8] 9

There ar e al so cer

tain qualifications to the g eneral rule when the 1 inmate is servinga sente nce f or a “viol ent crime,” as de fined in CS §7- 101(m). An inmate serving a sentenc e, other than life imprisonment, for a vio le nt c ri meis e lig ibl e fo r paro le a ft e r s e rv ingthegre ate r o f “ on ehalf the inmate’s ag greg ate se ntencefor violent crimes” or “ one-f ourth of the inm ate ’s tot a l a g gre g atese ntenc e .” CS §7 -3 01 (c )( 1) (i ). Th e statut ea lso prov ide s a

sp e c if ic me tho d o f c omp utatio n f or an inmatese rv ingmul tip le sentenc es who ha s been convicted of a viol ent crime and whose sentence s include one under which the i nm at e is not eligible for parole . CS §7- 301(c) (1)( ii). Annotated Code of

Maryland, Article27, §413, g overns the 2 proce dures f

or sentenc ing a

defendant co nvicted of f irst degreemurder. In such a procee ding, if

for va rious rea sons, the court doe s not impose the de ath p e nalty

or l if ewi tho ut p os sib ili ty

of pa ro le , th e n th ec ourt

is t o impose a life se ntence

. G en era ll y , an inm ate se rvin g a sen tenc e o f six m o n ths o r m o re becomes el i gi bl e forpar ol e cons i der at i on aft ers er vi ng one- four t h of t he i nm at e’ s “aggr egat e s ent ence
. ” C S §7- 30 1 (a). H ow ever , t he sta tu te ta k e s a d if

f e re n t a p p ro a c h to p a ro le e lig ib ili ty f o r a n in m a te s er vi ng a s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i so n m ent

. A s a gene r al rul e, an 1 in m a te s e rv in g a stra ig h t lif e se n ten c e is n o t elig ib le f o r p a ro le “ u n til t he inm at e has served 15 y ears or the eq uival ent of 15 y ears , cons i der i ng t he al l ow ance s fordi m i nut i on of the i nm at e’ s t erm of confi nement

. . . . ” C S §7- 301( d) ( 1)

. H ow ever , i f t he i nm at e r ece i ved t he l i fe s ent ence aft ert he St at e so u g h t b utdi d notobt ai n a har s her s ent ence i n “a pr ocee di ng underA r t i cl e 27, §413, ” t he i nm at e i s not 2 el i gi bl e forpar ol e “unt i l the i nm at e has s er ved 25 y ear s ort he equi val entof 25 y ear s cons i der i ng t he al l ow ance s for di m i nut i on of th e in m a te’ s te rm o f

c o n f in e m e n t..

.. ” C S § 7 -3 0 1 (d )(2 ). T h u s , in ei t hercas e, t he s t atut e s t at es t hatan i nm at e s er vi ng a s t r ai ghtl i fe se n ten c e b e com e s e lig ib le f o r p a ro le c o n sid e ra tio n a f ter th e re q u isite nu m ber of y ears w i t h all ow ance f or di m i nu t i on credi t s. B
. D im in u tio n Cre dits
A s a gene r al rul e, di m i nut i on cr edi t s ar e appl i ed t o det er m i ne w hen an i nm at e s er vi ng a speci fi c t er m of y ear s m us tbe r el eas ed, pr i ort o t he end of t he ful l t er m , on m andat or ys uper vi s i on. C S §3- 701 et s eq. In t h e l an g u ag e of the st atute, an inm ate servin g a term of y ear s i s ent it led to de duct i ons t hateff ecta “di m i nut i on of the i nm at e’ s t er m of confi nement

. ” C S §3- 702. A n i ndi vi dual r el eas ed1 0 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

Good conduc t cre dits a

re allowed in advance at the rate of 5 or 10 3 days per month of the inmate ’s term of c onfinement, depending upon the natureof the inmate’ s convictions. CS §3-704. “ Work” and “ education” cre dits are allowed at the rate of 5 days p er m o nth of satisfac tory “progress”in th e wo rktask or educ ation course . CS §3-705(a); CS §3- 7 0 6 ( a)

. “ S p e c i a lp r o

j e c t ”c r e d i t s ar e a l l o w e d

atth er at eo f

u p t o 1 0 d ays per month of satisfactory “progress” in the special project. CS §3-707(a)

. Under CS §3-70 8 , an inmate’ s total deductions attributable to ea ch c a le nd ar m onth m ay

no t e xce e d 2 0 d ay s. on m andat or ys uper vi s i on as a r es ul tof t hos e deduct i ons i s s ubj ect to a ll “la w s, ru les , reg u latio n s, a n d c o n d iti o n s th a t ap p lyto p a r o l e e s , ” a s w e l l a s t o “ a n y s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d b y a [par ole] com m i s s i oner
. ” C S §7- 502( b)

. H ow ever , r el eas e on m and at ory supervi si on i s dis t i nct from parol e i n that t he s tatu te r e q u i r e s t h e r e l e a s e f

r o m c o n f

i n e me n t o f a n i n ma t e e l i g i bl e for m a n d a to rysu p e rv isio n w h ile rele a se o f a n in m a te e lig ib le f o r p a ro le is a d is c re tio n a ry d e c is io n
. D im in u tio n c re d its in c lu d e : “g o o d c o n d u c t” c re d its a llo w e d in advanc e bas ed upon the l ength of the i nm at e’ s t er m of conf i nement ( C S §3- 704) ; “w or k” cr edi t s forpar t i ci pat i on i n w or k t as ks ( C S §3- 7 0 5 ); “ e d u c a ti o n ” c r e d it s f o rp a r ti c ip a ti o n in e d u c a ti o n a l, vo c a tio n a l, o r oth e r tra in in g c o u rse s (C S § 3 -7 0 6 ); a n d “ sp e c ial p rojec t” c re d its forpar t i ci pat i on i n des i gnat ed s peci al pr oj ect s and pr ogr ams ( C S §3- 707)

. D im inu ti on cr edi t s earned forgood conductors peci al 3 pr oj ect s m aybe r evoked i f the i nm at e vi ol at es appl i cabl e rul es of di s ci pl i ne. C S §3- 709.
A n i nm at e s er vi ng a s t r ai ghtl i fe s ent ence i s notaw ar ded di m i nut i on cr edi t s forpurpos es of det er m i ni ng a dat e of r el eas e on m an d atorysu p erv isi o n
. T h at i s b ec au se d im inu ti o n cre d it s are appl i ed aga i ns ta “t er m of confi nement , ” and onl yan i nm at e s er vi ng a “t er m of conf

i nement ” maybe r el eas ed on mandat or ys uper vi s i on. A s defi ned i n C S §3 -701, “t erm of co nfinem ent” m eans:

(1 ) th e len g th o f th e se n ten c e , f o r a sin g le sen tenc e; or ( 2) t he per i od fr om t he fi r s t dayof the s ent ence t hatbegi ns fi r s tt hr ough t he l as tday o f th e se n tenc e tha t end s last, fo r:G en. 8] 11 (i ) con curr ent s entences; (i i ) part i al l ycon curr ent s entences; (i ii ) co n sec u ti v e se n tenc es; o r (i v ) a co m b ination o f c o n curr entand c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s
. C S §3- 701. A s t r ai ghtl i fe s ent ence d o es n o t com pr i s e a f i xed per i od, and does nothave a det er m i nabl e “l as tday ” thates t abl i s hes a n e n d in g d a te a g a in s t w h ic h d im in u tio n c re d its m a yb e a p p lie d

. See C S § § 3 -7 0 1 (d )(2 ), 3 -7 0 2 . T h u s, a n in m a te se rv in g a life se n ten c e is nots er vi ng a “t er m of conf i nement ” and i s notel i gi bl e forr el eas e on m andat or ys uper vi s i on underC S §7- 501.

II
A n a ly sis
W e under s t and y our ques t i on t o be as fol l ow s : I nas m uch as an inm ate servi ng a s t r ai ghtl i fe s ent ence i s notent i t l ed t o di m i nut i on cr edi t s fort he us ual purpos e of de t er m i ni ng t he i nm at e’ s r el eas e on m andat or ys uper vi s i on , does t he l aw pr ovi de fors uch cr edi t s t o be appl i ed t o det er m i ne thati nm at e’ s el i gi bi l i t yforpar ol e?
T h e lit e ra l lan g u a g e o f th e p e rtin e n t sta tu te p e rm its p a ro le cons i der at i on aft eran i nm at e servi ng a l i fe se nt ence has s er ved “the equ i valent o f 15 [or 25 ] y ears cons i der i ng the al l ow ances f or di m i nut i on of

the i nm at e’s t er m of

conf i nem ent

. . . . ” C S § 7- 301( d) ( emphasi s added)

. O ne mi ghtar g u e t hat , beca us e a s t r ai ghtl i fe s ent ence i s not a “t er m of conf i nement , ” the i t al i ci zed l anguage does notr equi r e anyadj us t m entt o t he par ol e eli gi bi l i t ydat e. I n ot her w or ds , beca us e s uch an i nm at e does not earn di m i nut i on cr edi t s for p u rpo ses o f d eterm ining the in m ate’s relea se o n m an d atory s uper vi s i on, t her e s houl d be no deduction fro m t he 15 and 25 y ear p e ri o d s s p e c if

ie d f o r p a ro le c o n s id e ra tio n
. H o w e v e r , th a t in ter p re tatio n w o u ld re n d e r p a rt o f th e sta tu te m eani ngl es s
. I n o u r o p i ni on, t he rul es of s t atut oryi nt erpr et at i on c o m p e l th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e L e g isla tu re in ten d e d to in c o rp o ra te d im in u tio n c re d it s a s a c o m p o n e n t o f th e d e ter m in a tio n o f

p a ro le e lig ib ility f

o r i n m a te s s e n te n c e d to lif e im p ri s o n m e n t.1 2 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

The phra se “period of conf inement” wa s later chang ed to “ term of 4 confine ment” duringcode revision, without any s ub stantive cha

ng e. Chapter 54, L aws of Ma

ryland 1999, Revisor’s Noteat p. 657.
In1 9 7 1 , d i m i nut i o nc r e d i t s w e r e aw ard e d o n a m o nth l y b a s i s
. In 5 1985, the L eg islature amended the statute to requ i re allowanc e of g ood c on du c t c re dit s in

a dv ance base d o n a

c omp utatio n o f t

heinm ate ’s full sentenc e. SeeChapter 466, L aws of Ma ryland 1985, now codified at CS §3-704(a). This cha

ng e in the computation of di minution credits does not aff ect our interpre tation of the parole elig ibility statute.
In 1983, the L eg islature adde d a parallel provision governing 6 paroleelig i b i l i ty fo r any

inmate servinga life sentenceas a result of a failed a pplication for the de ath penalty

. Chapter 298, L aws of Ma ryland 1983. That provision, now codifie d in CS §7-301(d) (2), lengthened the period of ine ligibility

to 25 year s, but stil l included an a djustment for dim inutio n c re dit s. T h e leg isla tiv e h isto ryo f C S § 7 -3 0 1 ( d ) su p p o rts th is in ter p re tatio n
. A p p ro x im a tely 6 0 y e a rs a g o , th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly s ett he par ol e el i gi bi l i t ydat e foran i nm at e s er vi ng a l i fe s ent ence at 15 y ear s
. C hapt er406, §55, L aw s of M ary l and 1939. I n 1971, t he L egi s l atur e modi fi ed thatpr ovi s i on t o al l ow par ol e cons i d era ti on aft ers uch an i nm at e had s er ved 15 y ea rs “ ort he equa l of fi ft een y ear s w hen cons i der i ng t he al l ow ance fordi m i nut i on of per iod of confi nement pr ovi ded [bys t atut e]

. ” C hapt er 690, L aw s of M ary l and 1971. T hen, as now , an i nm at e coul d earn di m i nut i on cr edi t s dur i ng

4 a per i od of conf

i n em en t, w i t h t he r es ul tt hatt he i nm at e coul d be re le a s e d p ri o r t o th e e n d o f th e f u ll te rm “ a s if

re le a s e d o n p a ro le .” See A n n o tate d C o d e o f M a ry lan d , A rticle 4 1 , § 1 2 7 A (1 9 7 1 R e p l. V ol

. )

. A l t hough t he l egi s l at i ve fi l es conce r ni ng t he bi l l t hatr es ul t ed

5 i n C hapt er 690 ar e no l onger avai l abl e, t her e can be l i t t l e doubtt hat t he Legi s l atur e i nt ended t hat di m i nut i on cr edi t s be appl i ed t o t he 15- y earel i gi bi l i t ydat e foran i nm at e s er vi ng a l i fe s ent ence , even 6 t hough t hos e cr edi t s coul d notr es ul ti n t he i nm at e’ s r el eas e on m a n d a to ry su p e rv is io n
. A contr ary concl us i on w oul d r ender t he 19 7 1 am endment m eani n g less

. T he l anguage quot ed above conce r ni ng di m i nut i on cr edi t s w as t he onl yamendm entm ade t o t he par ol e s t atut e byt he 1971 l aw
. T o concl ude thatdi m i nut i on cr edi t s s houl d notbe c re d ited a g a in st th e in m a te’ s p a ro le e lig ib ili ty d a te w o u ld b e to c o n stru e th e 1 9 7 1 a m e n d m e n t as in e f f e c tiv e . H o w e v e r , a sta tu teG en. 8] 13 sh o u ld n o t b e in ter p re te d s o a s to re n d e r “ a n yp o rtio n o f it, m ea n ingl es s , s urpl us age, s uper fl uous , ornugat or y
. ” M a y o rand C i t y C ou ncil

v. C ha se , 3 6 0 M d

. 1 2 1 , 1 2 9 , 7 5 6 A

. 2 d 9 8 7 , 9 9 2 (20 0 0 ); Trac ey v
. Trac ey , 3 2 8 M d

. 3 8 0 , 3 8 7 , 6 1 4 A

. 2 d 5 9 0 , 5 9 4 (19 9 2 ).
W e under s t and thatt he C o m m i s s i on gave thi s eff ectt o t he la n g u a g e c o n c e rn in g d i m i n u tio n c re d its b e g in n in g in 1 9 7 1

. See M ary l and Par ol e C om m issi on, Pol i cyand Pr ocedur e N o. 2- 21; D iv is io n o f

C o rr e c tio n , C om m itm en tP r ocedur e M anual , C hapt er 90- 720 ( 1999 r ev. )

. T hi s lon g -st andi ng i nt erpr et at i on of the C om m i s s i on, cons i s t entw i t h t he l anguage and evi dentpurpos e of t he 1971 amendm ent , w oul d be acc or ded s ubs t ant i al w ei ghtbyt he c o u rt s
. S ee A dam s on v. C or r ect i onalMedi cal Ser vi ces , I

nc. , 359 M d. 2 3 8 , 2 6 6 , 7 5 3 A. 2 d 5 0 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f s t a tu t e s o on aft eri t s pas s age byagenc ytha tadmi ni s t er s i t“s houl d notbe d isr eg ard ed ex ce p t fo r th e stron g est an d m o st urg en t r ea so n s”).
I ti s appar entt hat , i n author i zi ng par ole of an i nm at e s er vi ng a l i fe s ent ence , t he Legi s l atur e i nt ended t o i ncorpor at e, as i t di d for i nm ates ser vi ng t er m s of y ear s , i ncent i ves forgood behavi orand p a rtici pati on i n ed ucati on al and w ork prog ram s. F or an i nm a te s er vi ng a l i fe s ent ence , how ever , cre di t s forgood behavi orand par t i ci pat i on i n t hos e pr ogr ams r es ul t s , noti n aut om at i c r el eas e fr om c u s to d y , b u t o n ly in e a rl ie r e lig ib ility f o r p a ro le

. O f c o u rse , n o th in g in th e sta tu te c o m p e ls th e C o m m is sio n to r e c o mme n d p a r o l e f

o ra n i n ma t e s e r v i n g a l i f e s e n t e n c e a tt h e t i me o f t he i nm at e’ s i ni t i al el i gi bi l i t y
. T he C om m i s s i on has s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i on i n exer ci s i ng i t s s t atut or ydut yt o m ake a r ecomm endat i on conce rnin g par ol e foran i nm at e s er vi ng a l i fe s ent ence
. C S §7- 206( 3) ( i ) ; C S §7- 305 ( fac t or s and infor m at i on t o be cons i der ed by th e C o m m iss io n ); see al so Lom ax v. W

ar den , 356 M d

. 569, 741 A .2 d 4 7 6 (1 9 9 9 ). T h e G o v e rn o r h a s e v e n b ro a d e r d isc re tio n in d eterm ining w h ethe r to acc ep t that rec o m m en d ati o n
. Lom ax , 356 M d. at578 n. 2.

III C oncl usi on I n ouropi ni on, t he par ol e el i gi bi l i t y dat e of an i nm at e s er vi ng a s t r ai ght l i fe se nt ence m us tbe adj us t ed bydeduct i ng anydi m i nut i on c re d its to w h ich th e in m a te is e n tit led f o r p u rp o se s o f

p a ro le e lig ib ili ty . O rd in a rily , an in m a te s e rv in g su c h a se n ten c e w ill1 4 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y become el i gi bl e forpar ol e consi der at i on i n 15 y ear s , as adj us t ed by d im in u tio n c re d its. If

th e in m a te is se rv in g a life se n ten c e a s a re su lt of a f ai l ed appl i cat i on fort he dea t h penal t y , t he i nm at e m aynotbe parol ed fo r 25 y ears , as adj ust ed b ydim i nu t i on credi t s.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
A l an D

. E as on A s s is tan t A tto rn ey G en er al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce

E ditor ’s N

ote: T h e C o u rt o f

S p e c ia l A p p e a ls d isc u ss e d th is o p in io n in W i ther s poon v. Mar

yla n dP ar ol e C om m is s i on , 149 M d. 101, 814 A .2 d 1 2 3 (2 0 0 2 ), cer t

. deni ed , 3 7 4 M d

. 8 4 , 8 2 1 A

. 2 d 5 7 1 (20 0 3 ).