Opinion ID: 2424519
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hutchinson

Text: Just two years after Henderson, we decided the heretofore most recent diminution credit case decided by this Court, Hutchinson. Hutchinson was in and out of prison multiple times, beginning in 1970. Relevantly, in 1993, he was sentenced for a conviction of possession with intent to distribute heroin. Ultimately, he was released on mandatory supervision, but that relative freedom was short-lived. In 1996, he was convicted and sentenced for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Hutchinson argued for aggregation, claiming that his multiple sentences, imposed both before and after mandatory supervision, should constitute a single term of confinement for purposes of the diminution credit statute. See Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 327-28, 753 A.2d at 1028. His aim was to earn greater credits against his old, disqualifying sentence. See id. The Division disagreed, explaining that Hutchinson's approach would lead to the absurd result of an inmate who commits a new crime and receives a new sentence while on mandatory supervision serving less time upon revocation of the mandatory supervision than an inmate who does not commit a new crime and receives no new sentence but whose mandatory supervision is revoked for other reasons. Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 328, 753 A.2d at 1028. The Division also relied upon the language of CS § 7-504(b) (now CS § 7-504(c)), which provided that an inmate may not be awarded any new diminution credits after the inmate's mandatory supervision has been revoked. Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 327, 753 A.2d at 1028. The Division maintained steadfastly that CS § 7-504(b) meant diminution credits may be awarded against a new sentence, but not until the `old' sentence has been fully served. Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 327, 753 A.2d at 1025. We rejected both parties' perspectives. Hutchinson's approach did not prevail because, despite CS § 7-504(b)'s ambiguity, one thing was clearthe General Assembly did not intend for there to be any future diminution credits applied against the sentence(s) the inmate was serving when placed on mandatory supervision. Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 330, 753 A.2d at 1029. On the other hand, the [Division's] position ... would deny prisoners the full benefit of the laws, for inmates are entitled to begin earning good conduct credits upon imposition of [new] sentence[s].... Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 331, 753 A.2d at 1029-30. As a result, the Division's position fail[ed] to carry out the legislative intent of the General Assembly's statutory scheme. Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 331, 753 A.2d at 1029. To fairly implement[] the legislative intent, we held instead that [p]risoners who receive a new sentence[] for conduct committed while on mandatory supervision should receive, and must be given, good conduct credits on that sentence[] as though there were no existing sentence[]. Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 331, 753 A.2d at 1030. [W]ith respect to the existing sentence, however, the prisoner gets no benefit from [good-conduct credits].... Id. Thus, [f]or purposes of applying CS § 7-504(b), the existing sentence[] ... and any new sentence[] ... must be considered separately. Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 330-31, 753 A.2d at 1029. We concluded our analysis by summarizing our good-conduct credits jurisprudence. In Fields, Wickes, and Henderson, we learned that: [W]ith an increasing number of prisoners serving multiple sentencessome concurrent, some consecutive, some imposed at the same time, some imposed at different times, some imposed before certain legislative enactments affecting diminution credits, some imposed after those enactmentsrules governing diminution credits will affect different prisoners in different ways. A construction that will benefit one group will often hurt another group. A result that appears quite reasonable in one circumstance may appear to be unreasonable in another. Hutchinson, 359 Md. at 330, 753 A.2d at 1029. Faced with such uncertainty and lack of expertise, we walked in the foot-steps of Fields and Henderson (and even Wickes [5] ), relying upon for conclusive guidance the legislative intent embodied in the diminution credit statutory scheme. See id. (The issue, ultimately, is one of legislative intent.). [6] If one thing is clear, it is that, as in Fields and Wickes [,] we subordinate[] the general direction to aggregate multiple sentences into a single term of confinement when to do otherwise would... den[y] inmates the benefit of a law that the General Assembly intended be applicable to them.... Id.