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

Heading: Gerald Fuller

Text: Gerald Fuller was sentenced to life imprisonment and committed to the custody of the DOC in October of 1979 after he pled guilty to first-degree murder, first-degree rape and robbery with a deadly weapon. On March 9, 2001, he filed a grievance in the Grievance Office, asserting that DCD 100-105 applied to prevent him from obtaining security below the level of medium security. According to Fuller, at the time he was sentenced, the security policies allowed him to progress to minimum security ... and pre-parole testing to demonstrate parole suitability, but DOC modified the security polices after his sentence to prevent him from qualifying for parole release. On September 6, 2001, the Executive Director of the Grievance Office dismissed the grievance, reasoning that the DOC security policies, represented by the DCDs, were subject to change as warranted by the Commissioner [of Correction] or his designees. As for Fuller's claim that the DCDs operated to deny him parole release, the Director characterized it as speculative and informed Fuller that the Grievance Office has no jurisdiction over matters related to parole. The Director then suggested that Fuller contact the Parole Commission directly to discuss the matter. On May 17, 2002, the Circuit Court for Washington County affirmed the decision of the Grievance Office. The Circuit Court explained its reasons: [Fuller's] sentence has not been enlarged by the modification of the DCDs. The [DCD's amendments], although increasing the level of security in which he must be maintained, did not affect him in a punitive manner. The changes were lawfully and appropriately made in order to allow the department to deal with perceived serious penological difficulties should lifers be continued on minimum security, work release or other less severe classification levels. Consequently, the implementation of DCD 100-005, viewed in isolation, does not violate the ex post facto prohibition of the State or Federal Constitutions. The Circuit Court further stated that, because the Grievance Office has jurisdiction over complaints against officials or employees of the DOC or Patuxent Institution, it was not the proper forum for pursuing claims against the Parole Commission.