Opinion ID: 2267996
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Glenn Watkins

Text: Glenn Watkins was convicted of first degree murder and, on May 5, 1972, began serving a life sentence with a concurrent sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. During his period of incarceration until June 2, 1993, when inmates serving life sentences, including Watkins, became ineligible for work-release and family leave, he successfully had completed 57 family leave furloughs and had participated in the work-release program. On June 1, 2000, Watkins filed a grievance with the Inmate Grievance Office (hereinafter the Grievance Office) and stated: [My] complaint involves the promulgation of [DCDs] by former Commissioner of Correction, Richard Lanham, which permanently prohibit life sentenced inmates from progressing below medium security (DCD 100-005), from participating in work release programming (DCD 100-508), and from participation in family leave programming (DCD 100-543).[I] had actively achieved each of these security statuses before all life sentenced inmates were, supposedly, temporarily removed from the prerelease system on June 3, 1993. He claimed that the DCDs are in violation of the ex post facto clause[s] of the Maryland and United States Constitutions and requested that they be rescinded as illegal. On December 11, 2000, the Executive Director of the Grievance Office dismissed Watkin's grievance for the following reasons: [T]he Commissioner of Correction is responsible for the security of prisoners committed to his custody. As such, it is his responsibility to promulgate directives which establish the manner in which inmates are classified. The criteria for the various levels of security are subject to change as warranted by the Commissioner or his designees. When you were committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction, you became subject to various security policies that were in place at that timeand that were subject to change. A revision of Classification procedures is not the equivalent of an ex post facto law. Watkins filed an action for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. In affirming the decision of the Grievance Office, the court ruled that the General Assembly has accorded the DOC and the Commissioner authority to regulate within the Division of Correction and the DCDs come within the discretion of the Commissioner, constituting guidelines, which are not subject to ex post facto prohibitions....