Top MD court rules against DPSCS in pair of decisions

In a pair of decisions by the Maryland Supreme Court earlier this month, the high court ruled against the state’s Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services‘ interpretations of diminution and time-served credits for incarcerated individuals, delivering relief to inmates seeking to shorten their prison sentences.

Justice Shirley Watts authored the majority opinion in Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services v. Dallas Fenton, where the high court held that a Maryland law prohibiting an incarcerated person serving a sentence for third-degree sexual offense of a child under 16 years old from receiving diminution credits if the inmate was previously convicted of the same offense applies only where the previous conviction precedes the commission of the offense for the sentence an inmate is serving.

Justice Brynja Booth wrote the high court’s unanimous opinion in Carlos D. Bivens v. Amondre Clark, where the court held a criminal defendant is entitled to receive credit for time served when a conviction is vacated in situations where the defendant’s term of confinement consists of multiple sentences and one or more convictions underlying those sentences is vacated but at least one valid, active sentence remains. The credit for time served commences on the date of the first invalidated sentence, the court ruled.

The Maryland Supreme Court issued both rulings on July 11.

In DPSCS, the high court found that the legislative history of CS § 3-702(c) shows that the General Assembly intended to deter repeat offenders from committing new third-degree sexual offenses, meaning Dallas Fenton is entitled to diminution credits because he had not been “previously convicted” at the time of the offense.

According to the court, Fenton’s eight convictions by a Wicomico County jury in 2017 for third-degree sexual offense, in addition to two other charges, took place during a single criminal sentencing proceeding, where none of the convictions preceded the commission of another offense.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Jonathan Biran wrote the legislative history of CS § 3-702(c) reveals multiple policy goals in addition to deterrence are advanced by not providing diminution credits, including continued separation of repeat sex offenders from society and rehabilitation.

In Bivens, the high court effectively instructed the habeas court to vacate an April 2024 sentence entered for Amondre Clark, who contended the Division of Correction for DPSCS incorrectly treated Clark’s time served sentence as a new sentence and tacked on the consecutive sentences that it had tolled pending the state’s reprosecution of Clark.

The court found the Division of Correction’s policy, under which it held off on granting a criminal defendant’s time served credit on a vacated conviction in order to see if prosecutors secure a new conviction, is inconsistent with the “clean slate” rule and a defendant’s presumption of innocence.

“Once a conviction is vacated, it can take months or even years for a reprosecution or a retrial,” Booth wrote. “It would be unfair to a criminal defendant to hold a credit for time served on a vacated conviction for a substantial period of time instead of immediately applying it to the next valid sentence.”

Lauren Castelli represented Fenton and Clark through the Prisoner Rights Information System of Maryland Inc., which provides state-contracted legal services to any individual housed in the Maryland Division of Correction and Patuxent. In a joint statement from Castelli + Devore and PRISM, the entities described the high court’s decisions as a “sharp rebuke” of the DPSCS “and a clear reminder of the constitutional limits on executive authority.”

“These rulings impact real people who have been denied credit for years of their lives behind bars,” the organizations said. “The Department’s actions reflect a deeper, systemic problem: a department-wide attitude that it can operate however it chooses, regardless of what the law actually requires. By issuing both decisions on the same day, the Court sent a resounding message: the Department does not have the authority to twist or ignore the law to suit its own convenience.”

A spokesperson for the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, whose office represented DPSCS in the two cases, declined to comment.

Thomas Maronick Jr., senior partner at Maronick Law LLC who practices criminal defense, said the decisions will have a broad impact.

“Generally speaking, I predict this will open the door to many people being released when petitions are filed and fact scenarios turn out to be qualifying fact scenarios,” Maronick said in a phone call. “I think that this will lead to lot of people getting out who may not have thought they had hope for.”