Opinion ID: 1844374
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Way the Reformatory Calculates Work Bonus Day Credits Violates Iowa Code Section 903A.2.

Text: Iowa Code section 903A.2 allows an inmate to reduce the inmate's sentence in two ways: through good conduct time credits and through work bonus day credits. Specifically, the statute pertinently provides: Each inmate of an institution under the Iowa department of corrections, is eligible for a reduction of sentence of one day for each day of good conduct of the inmate while committed to one of the department's institutions. In addition to the sentence reduction of one day for each day of good conduct, each inmate is eligible for an additional reduction of sentence of up to five days a month if the inmate participates satisfactorily in employment in the institution.... Iowa Code § 903A.2 (emphasis added). As they did in the district court, the applicants challenge the way the reformatory calculates work bonus day credits for purposes of section 903A.2. Section 903A.2 authorizes a day-for-day reduction in an inmate's sentence for good conduct. That means an inmate earns an extra day reduction in sentence for each day the inmate serves. The net effect of the credit is that the sentence is cut in half. According to the reformatory's method of computation, an inmate is given all of the good conduct day-for-day reduction against the entire sentence immediately upon the inmate's commitment. This results in a projected reduction of sentence rather than an actual reduction. The computation produces what the reformatory calls a projected discharge date (PDD), which forecasts the actual time to be served. The calculation is based on the assumption that the inmate will serve the entire projected sentence. Because the PDD is calculated before an inmate has completed even one day of the actual sentence, the PDD is subject to change. For example, loss of good conduct time because of a rule infraction can extend the PDD. But logically the loss of good conduct time must be computed by taking into account the day-for-day credit for each day served. For example, a loss of sixteen days of good conduct time extends the PDD or the actual time to be served by eight rather than sixteen days. The sixteen days is like an additional sentence that must be reduced by the day-for-day credit the inmate receives upon commitment. In this example the day-for-day credit is eight days. According to the State, the following example shows how the reformatory's method of calculation works: Length of sentence (2 years x 365 days) 730 days Less maximum good conduct time credit available 365 days ____ Initial PDD 365 ==== Loss of good conduct time for rule infraction 16 days Less maximum good conduct time day-for-day credit available because of increase in confinement 8 days ____ Total increase to PDD 8 days Add initial PDD 365 days ____ New PDD 373 days ==== As we said, work bonus day credits also reduce an inmate's sentence. These credits are earned if the inmate participates satisfactorily in employment in the institution. Iowa Code § 903A.2. Under the reformatory's method, a calculation of work bonus day credits rests on the same logic that applies in calculating the loss of good conduct time. Like the latter calculation, the calculation of work bonus day credits must take into account the day-for-day credit originally given the inmate at the time of commitment. Again, this is because the day-for-day credit was projected on the assumption the inmate would serve the entire projected sentence. Once work bonus day credits are earned, the inmate will not be serving the entire projected sentence and so will not be earning all of the day-for-day credits originally projected. The PDD must therefore be adjusted to reflect work bonus day credits and the reduction in day-for-day credits. Unless the reduction in day-for-day credits is made, the inmate would receive a windfall: a double reduction in sentence. This double reduction would result from (1) the original day-for-day credit given at commitment and (2) a day-for-day credit given the inmate for time not served. Logically, then, because the original day-for-day credits reduced the sentence by one-half, the work bonus day credits must likewise be reduced by one-half. According to the State, the following example shows how thirty days of work bonus day credits would affect a two-year sentence: Length of sentence (2 years x 365 days) 730 days Less maximum good conduct time credit available 365 days ___ Initial PDD 365 === Total days of work bonus credit 30 days Less good conduct time credit no longer earnable because inmate will serve only one-half of these thirty days due to day-for-day credit originally given inmate at commitment 15 days ___ Work bonus credit available 15 days === Initial PDD 365 days Less work bonus credit 15 days ___ New PDD 350 days === The applicants think that the total work bonus day credits of thirty daysrather than one-half of those creditsshould be applied to the PDD. Under the applicants' method of calculation, the new PDD in the above example would be 335 days (365 - 30) rather than 350 days. The bone of contention between the applicants and the State is the good conduct time forecast the institution makes under section 903A.2 at the time of commitment. This projection isas we saidmade before any time is actually served and before an inmate's eligibility for employment and work bonus day credits is determined. What section 903A.2 does require is a day-for-day reduction of sentence by good conduct time an inmate earns while committed to one of the department's institutions. Iowa Code § 903A.2. This means that an inmate cannot actually receive good conduct time for days not actually served. We agree with the district court that if the time served is reduced by work bonus credits and thereby reduces the amount of time the inmate is actually in the institution, an adjustment must be made in the good conduct time that has already been projected ahead of time. While the institution once presumed the inmate was going to be there for a set period of time, that presumption is no longer true in that the period of time an inmate will serve has been reduced because of the work bonus credits. Therefore, the good time already figured must be adjusted. (Emphasis added.) We think the district court correctly concluded that the current method of computation employed by the reformatory complies with section 903A.2.