Opinion ID: 1997568
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Award of Good Time Credits

Text: Delaware courts, like many state and federal courts, are increasingly faced with disputes involving inmates' claims to good time. [17] Yet very little scholarly attention has been given to this complicated area of the law, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding how good time is awarded, forfeited, and restored. [18] The laws relating to good time differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. [19] These differing laws reflect varying judgments about the value and the purpose of good time. [20] The purpose of good time in Delaware has been described as an administrative rehabilitative device that provides for an inmate's early release from his or her term of imprisonment. [21] Good time does not exist as a matter of constitutional right. [22] Rather, the allowance of good time to an inmate is strictly a matter of statute. [23] An inmate therefore has no greater right to good time grace than is provided in the statutes authorizing its award. [24] By the same token, the Department also is bound by the good time statutes and may not mold the statutes to suit its own views of the best correctional practices and procedures. [25] Both before and after Truth-in-Sentencing, good time consists of two types of credits: behavior credits and merit credits. [26] Behavior credits may be awarded for an inmate's continuing compliance with the Department's disciplinary rules and regulations. [27] Merit credits may be earned for an inmate's participation in certain education, rehabilitation, or work programs. [28] The rate at which good time credits may be earned on sentences imposed after the Act is significantly less than on sentences imposed before the Act. [29] Therefore, the Department necessarily must perform two separate calculations in computing an inmate's good time credits (assuming the inmate is serving sentences imposed both before and after the Act). Although the applicable rates vary, the Department employs the same methodology in performing these separate calculations. For example, in Andrews' case, in order to compute his behavior credits on his sentences imposed before the Act, the Department aggregated his two seven-year sentences and then computed all of the behavior credits that Andrews possibly could earn on his fourteen-year sentence term. [30] This calculation was performed as of the day that Andrews' began serving the two seven-year sentences imposed before Truth-in-Sentencing. All of those behavior credits will be automatically deducted from the end of Andrews' total prison term unless he subsequently commits a disciplinary infraction that causes all or a part of those behavior credits to be forfeited. [31] Merit credits awarded to Andrews during the two sentences imposed before Truth-in-Sentencing are computed monthly based on Andrews' actual participation in qualified programs, and also will be deducted from the end of Andrews' total prison term. Similarly, as to Andrews' good time credits earned during the sentences imposed after the Act, the Department added together the two two-year sentences that Andrews received and computed the maximum amount of behavior credits available on the four-year post-Act sentence term. Those behavior credits were also calculated as of the day that Andrews began serving his sentences imposed after the Act and will be deducted automatically at the end of Andrews' total 18-year prison term unless Andrews commits a disciplinary violation. Andrews' post-Act merit credits also are computed on a monthly basis, are awarded only for actual participation, and will also be subtracted from the end of his total 18-year prison term, provided he commits no violations of prison rules. The effect on an inmate's sentence of the Department's method of computing and crediting good time credits is better understood when applied to an inmate who is serving only one sentence imposed either before or after the Act. It is more difficult to analyze the effects of the Department's methodology in Andrews' case because of the applicability of two separate and distinct good time plans, each with its own mutually exclusive provisions for awarding, forfeiting, and restoring good time. To understand how the two good time plans operate in conjunction with each other, it is helpful to understand how good time operates under each system independently.