Inside

MICHAEL S. STEELELt. Governor

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR.Governor

a publication of theMaryland Parole Commission

No. 11 July 2005

The

Back Bench

“We explore once again the arcane world ofdiminution credits available to prisoners in theState correctional system.” So begins the opin-ion of the Court of Appeals in Secretary of PublicSafety and Correctional Services v. Hutchinson, 359Md. 320, 321, 753 A.2d 1024 (2000). In an effortto make exploring that world a little easier forthe Judiciary, the Division of Correction (DOC)has prepared a bench card explaining the basicprinciples governing the awarding of diminu-tion credits. [See last page.]

Diminution credits have been part of the lawsof Maryland for many years. However, in thelast 15 years, changes in the laws have compli-cated the statutory scheme, especially forinmates serving multiple sentences and inmateswho are released from prison and return on thebasis of new sentences.

The card describes the types of credits in-mates may earn, how they are applied toinmates’ terms of confinement, and how theymay be rescinded by the DOC if an inmateviolates prison rules. The card also explains

mandatory supervision—the supervised releaseon which the inmate is placed after earning asufficient number of diminution credits. Thistype of supervised release, which is similar toparole, may be revoked by the Maryland ParoleCommission if the individual violates the condi-tions of release. The card also describes laws thatrestrict the earning of new credits after revoca-tion of mandatory supervision and that restrictthe application of previously earned credits ifthe inmate is sentenced to imprisonment for acrime committed while on mandatory supervi-sion.

Perhaps most importantly, the card providesjudges with the names of and contact informa-tion for the Director and Assistant Director ofCommitment for the DOC—the DOC personnelwho supervise the calculation of inmates’ sen-tences and diminution credits. The DOCrecognizes that the bench card can only givejudges an overview of the diminution creditlaws, and hopes that the Judiciary will feel freeto contact Commitment staff if they have anyquestions regarding the manner in which theDOC calculates inmates’ terms of confinement.

Michael O. Doyle, Assistant Attorney General,Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

Diminution Credits in Reference Form

Pretrial Release ........................... 3Drug Treatment .......................... 4Patuxent Overview .................... 6Legislation ................................... 8Dim. Credit Benchcard ............ 11

2

2The Joint Committee on Parole IssuesA Message from the Chair

This newsletter is published semiannually by the Maryland Parole Commission;David Blumberg, Chair. Please direct all inquiries regarding this issue to:

Editor, The Back BenchMaryland Parole Commission6776 Reisterstown Road, Suite 307Baltimore, MD 21215-2341 Tel.: 410-585-3200

TheBack Bench

graphic design by

Mary BrighthauptCourt Information Office

Annapolis, Maryland

Judge Robert J. Steinberg

Judge Steinberg

Welcome to the eleventh edition of The Back Bench. Fea-tured in this publication are articles related to topicsconcerning inmate confinement and rehabilitation. Yourattention is invited to an outline of programs available toinmates housed at the Patuxent Institution and an articleon Maryland’s drug treatment initiative. We are alsopleased to include an article and “cut-out” bench card thatattempts to simplify the “arcane world of diminutioncredits available to inmates in the State correctional sys-tem”. The Joint Committee thanks Assistant AttorneyGeneral Michael Doyle for his assistance in preparing thecard, and to Alan Friedman on his excellent artcile on thedrug treatment initiative. Commissioner Amedori hascontributed a legislative news update that sholud be ofinterest to the Judiciary.

The Joint Committee on Parole Issues wishes to thankDeputy Interstate Compact Adminstrator Fred Mathews forhis prior contributions to this publication and his help inanwering the interstate compact “hot-line.” We wish himwell and congratulate him on the occassion of his retirementfrom state service. We will miss him.

3

Less than a year after the Pretrial Programs adopted a new instrument to help make recommen-dations to the court on defendants’ pretrial release status, the preliminary results are encouraging.

To determine whether to release a defendant before a trial, many Pretrial Programs use a riskinstrument that measures various factors and indicators that may be relevant to a defendant’s risk offlight or risk to public safety. In Baltimore, the Pretrial Program had been using an instrument basedon the Vera Institute’s model developed in the late ‘60s. The Vera Point Scale, however, was notvalidated for the Baltimore jurisdiction, was cumbersome to use, and did not account for the publicsafety factors that the Judiciary demanded in our recommendations.

Looking for a solution, the parent organization of the Pretrial Program, the Maryland Departmentof Public Safety and Correctional Services, contracted with the University of Maryland Center forApplied Policy Studies’ Bureau of Governmental Research to conduct a study of the pretrial popula-tion in Baltimore and to develop a risk instrument that was objective, reliable, consistent, equitable,easy to use, and accounting for public safety.

After a study period during the fall and winter of 1998, a sample of cases scheduled for bailreview was selected at random and studied from August through October of 2000. The studyrevealed that the new risk instrument had the potential tomeet the goals of being objective, and it could be efficient touse and at least as effective as previous instruments.

Pilot projects were set up to study the ease of use, andcomparisons with previous recommendations were reviewed.In April 2004, the instrument was placed into service, replac-ing the Vera Point Scale.

The results have been very favorable. During the first sixmonths of the new risk instrument’s use, the failure to appearrate was 7.2 percent. During the same six-month reportingperiod last year, the failure to appear rate was 7.9 percent.Although this is an insignificant difference, it clearly showsthe instrument is working as designed.

Further analysis showed that the instrument also appears to be working when looking at therearrest rate for those charged with crimes against a person while under supervision. For the firstsix months that the instrument was in use, 2.1 percent were rearrested for crimes against a person.For the corresponding six-month period last year, the rearrest rate for those charged with crimesagainst a person was 2.2 percent. Again, this is statistically insignificant; however, the instrument isperforming at least as well as previous instruments.

The process of developing an objective risk assessment demonstrates the commitment of PretrialServices Agencies to their core values of fundamental fairness, objectivity, and a desire to do theright thing.

The Pretrial Release Services Program –

A Matter of FairnessRobert Weisengoff

Division of Pretrial and Detention Services

4

Governor Ehrlich’s “multi-front” approach tothe impact of substance abuse on the State’scitizens, its economy and its public safety seeksto provide a more effective and efficient fitbetween state and local substance abuse treat-ment programs, plan for the needs of both thecriminal justice system and the general public,and provide re-entry support and services fornewly released offenders.The governor’s initiative includes:

Comprehensive substance abuse treatmentlegislation proposed to the 2004 GeneralAssembly and enacted with wide bipartisansupport;The RESTART plan under the direction ofthe Department of Public Safety and Cor-rectional Services to provide pre-releaseand post-release programming for offend-ers; andThe new State Drug and Alcohol AbuseCouncil that is empowered to developstrategies and priorities for state substanceabuse services and coordinate those effortswith local subdivisions.

The legislation proposed by Governor Ehrlichand enacted by the General Assembly (Chapters237 and 238, Laws of Maryland2004) was co-sponsored by 55Delegates and 29 Senators. The lawencompasses diversion fromprosecution for low-level non-violent offenders and linkages totreatment systems for courts to usein sentencing decisions in non-violent cases. It also includedimproved procedures to promotecompliance with treatment orderedas a condition of probation andcreation of local planning councilsto identify priorities and strategiesin providing substance abuseprevention, intervention andtreatment services.

The law’s new diversion fromprosecution structure was de-

signed to ensure that prosecutors had access tosubstance abuse evaluations performed underthe State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administra-tion (ADAA) regulations prior to makingdiversion decisions for eligible non-violentoffenders. The evaluations would include adetermination of the offender’s amenability totreatment and identification of an appropriatetreatment program.

Data collection and evaluation of these pro-grams will be facilitated by the recordation ofthese diversions in limited-access sections of theState’s criminal justice information system.Successful completion of treatment directed aspart of the diversion will allow offenders toexpunge their records.

Unless indigent, the diverted offender willpay a $150 court cost to the newly createdMaryland Substance Abuse Fund. The Fund willbe administered by ADAA and used to defraylocal government costs for their Councils andprovide an additional source of money fortreatment services.

With the cooperation of the Maryland JudicialCommittee on Mental Health, Addictions andAlcoholism, Governor Ehrlich included in thelegislation a revision of provisions in the

Health-General Article dealingwith access to evaluation andtreatment services by the criminaljustice system. Specifically,Sections 8-505 through 8-507 ofthat Article were amended torequire that court-ordered evalua-tions of defendants be conductedunder ADAA standards andrecommendations for treatmentinclude an identified appropriateprogram with estimated date ofadmission. Commitment fortreatment of offenders alreadyserving sentences in correctionalfacilities will occur only undersupervision of probation authori-ties.

A Look at Maryland’s Drug Treatme

5

By Alan R. Friedman, Policy Advisor,Office of the Governor

The procedures for drug and alcohol evalua-tions and court referral to treatment programswill now include specific directions regardingthe contents of evaluations, transportation todefendants from correctional facilities andsupervision of offenders committed for treat-ment. Courts will retain their existing discretionto grant or refuse requests for treatment underthese sections.

The second part of the governor’s initiativefocuses on the treatment andlife skills needs of stateprison inmates. The RE-START plan, led byDepartment of Public Safetyand Correctional ServicesSecretary Mary Ann Saar,provides addictions treat-ment services, pre-releaseeducational and vocationalprogramming as well as post-release services. The planincludes local partnerships toprovide housing, employ-ment, substance abusetreatment, health care andlife skills education to offenders returning totheir communities. (See ADAA’s CompassNewsletter, January 2004)

We know that treatment works. ADAA re-ports that in some cases people completing

ADAA-funded programs reduced their primarysubstance use by 93 percent. In Baltimore,completing an ADAA-funded program resultsin a 25% greater likelihood of becoming em-ployed within one year with significantly higherwages than those who did not complete treat-ment. Arrest rates in the city for offensesincluding theft, burglary, and robbery were 55%lower for those completing treatment comparedwith those who did not complete treatment.

This data supports thebelief that unless changesare made in the currentcorrectional system or thecriminal justice system’scurrent access to treatmentservices, there is little hopethat recidivism rates can belowered or that we canreduce the number ofoffenders incarcerated fordrug law violations.

Governor Ehrlich’screation of the new Drugand Alcohol Abuse Coun-cil, the 2004 substance

abuse treatment legislation and the RESTARTeffort in the State’s correctional system repre-sent a coordinated effort to improve the healthand welfare of Maryland’s citizens and helpmake our communities safer places to live andwork.

Visit the Parole Commission’s website: www.dpscs.state.md.us/pcn

ent Initiative

6

The primary treatment focus ofthe Institution is on the male andfemale offenders within the Eli-gible Person (EP) and PatuxentYouth (YOP) Programs both ofwhich are mandated throughlegislation. While both utilize aremediation based, cognitive-behavioral approach, the programs

differ with the YOP delivering services geared tothe needs of the youthful inmate who was sen-tenced prior to the age of 21 years. Each programalso maintains a Patuxent Institution – Women(PIW) counterpart that tailors its services aroundthe special needs and issues of the female of-fender.

The Institution maintains paroling authorityfor these programs through the Institutional

Patuxent Institution Programming S

Title 4 (§ 4-101) of the Annotated Code of Marylanddetails the eligibility criteria for Patuxent Institution’sEligible Persons (EP) Program. It is stipulated that anindividual must meet the following:

• have been convicted of a crime and is serving asentence of imprisonment with at least 3 years remain-ing on that sentence;

• have an intellectual impairment or emotional unbalance;

• be likely to respond favorably to the programs andservices provided at Patuxent Institution; and

• be better able to respond to remediation throughPatuxent Institution’s programs and services than byother incarceration.

Also, individuals may not be found eligible if they are

• serving two or more life sentences;

• serving one or more life sentences in which a juryfound one or more aggravating circumstances existed;or

• convicted of first degree murder, first degree rape, orfirst degree sexual offense unless at the time of sentenc-ing the judge recommends a referral to Patuxent forevaluation.

The eligibility requirements for the Patuxent Institu-tion Youth Program (YP), as articulated in Title 4, aresimilar to the EP program. Individuals may beconsidered eligible for the Patuxent Youth Programonly if they:

• are under the age of 21 years;

• have been referred by the court at the time ofsentencing;

• have received a sentence of at least three years; and

• are amenable to treatment in the program.

Applies to both EP and YPOnce an inmate is transferred to the Patuxent Institu-tion, an extensive 6-month evaluation processcommences. Performed by a team of cliniciansconsisting of at least one psychiatrist, a psychologist,and a social worker, the evaluation includes a thor-ough review of the offender’s social, physical, andmental status.

Based on the team’s findings, a recommendation ismade whether or not the individual is eligible for thereferred treatment program (EP or Patuxent Youthprogram). Offenders found eligible for the programremain at Patuxent Institution for treatment. Thosefound ineligible are returned to the custody of theDivision of Correction.

Eligible Persons (EP) Program Youth Program (YP)

Board of Review (IBOR). The programs compriseapproximately 450 of the Institution’s 850-offender population. The goal of these programsis to remediate the criminegenic factors that havebeen identified as having contributed to thecriminal behavior of the offenders. This goal isaccomplished through the combined effort ofclinical, security, educational, and administrativestaff. Associated with the EP and YOP programsis the Institution’s Reentry Facility (REF) locatedin Baltimore City.

Male inmates granted work release are housedwithin the REF and are supported and monitoredby a complement of clinical and custody staff.Once granted Community Parole by theInstitution’s Board of Review this staff alsofunctions as the inmate’s parole agent. A similarprocess exists for female inmates with work

7

The Women’s Intensive Treatment (WIT) Programparticipation is required of all eligible inmates. CaseManagement at Maryland Correctional Institution-Women (MCI-W) performs an initial screening basedon scheduled release date from the institution.

The WIT staff performs a clinical evaluation, whichincludes an interview and the administration ofpsychological testing. Based on the screening processan inmate must meet the following criteria in order toparticipate in the WIT program:

• Be $ 36 months to mandatory supervision release dateor anticipated parole release;

• Not be classified to maximum security (inmates withlife sentences are not excluded);

• Be emotionally able to participate;

• Not be housed on segregation or any restrictivehousing unit; ·

• Not be a technical parole violator who has not had arevocation hearing; and

• A score of # 28 Psychopathy Checklist –Revised (PCL-R).

An assessment process governs admission to theResidential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT),Regimented Offender Treatment Center (ROTC), andSubstance Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) pro-grams. This process includes a review of theindividual inmates history and the administration ofthe Addictions Severity Index (ASI) and Level ofServices Inventory (LSI-R). RSAT eligibility requires:

• A history of severe drug or alcohol use as measured bythe ASI

• LSI-R score of 39 or less• A mandatory release date within 12 to 18 months• Does not exclude 643b inmates• Eligibility for minimum or pre-release security level

ROTC eligibility requires:

• A history of moderate drug or alcohol use as measuredby the ASI

• LSI-R score of 39 or less• An existing parole order• Excludes 643b inmates

SATP eligibility involves:

• Mild substance abuse as measured by the ASI, or• Insufficient time remaining on sent. to qualify for ROTC• Parole violation

release being housed at the Institution andmonitored by the PIW staff.

In addition to the above-noted programsunder the direct supervision of the Institutionalstaff the Institution also addresses the needs ofother offenders within the Department of PublicSafety and Correctional Services (DPSCS). Theseadditional programs which are housed bothwithin the Institutional perimeter or provided atDivision of Correction facilities are as follows:

1 The Correctional Mental Health Center-Jessup (CMHC-J) addresses the needs ofseriously mentally ill offenders within theDepartment’s Institutional settings.

2 The Regimented Offender Treatment Center(ROTC) is a four-month substance abuseprogram for male and female offenders.

3 The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment(RSAT) program is a six-month substanceabuse treatment program for offenders Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT),

Regimented Offender Treatment Center (ROTC),and Substance Abuse Treatment Program (SATP)

identified as having the most severe sub-stance abuse problems.

4 The Substance Abuse Transition (SAT)program is a six-week program for techni-cal parole violators that have been returnedto Patuxent Institution due to repeatedpositive tests for substance abuse. (Thisprogram is different from the six monthRSAT program).

5 The Mental Health Step-Down Unit and theMental Health Transition Unit are designedto assist offenders in their transition fromthe Correctional Mental Health Center-Jessup (CMHC-J).

6 The Institution maintains housing units forinmates who are waiting to be evaluated inthe Eligible Person (EP) and PatuxentYouth (YOP) Programs.

Randall S. Nero, Ph.D.,Director of Patuxent Institution

Women’s Intensive Treatment(WIT) Program

Summary

8

Alive and Well...The Maryland General Assembly reviewed 42

bills in the House and/or Senate dealing withJudges. Six of those were sponsored by SpeakerMike Busch and President Thomas V. “Mike”Miller at the request of the Judicial Compensa-tion Commission.

Among those are HJ1/SJR3 providing forjudicial salaries for fiscal years 2006 through2009. The Joint Resolution gives gradual salaryincreases through 2009 to Judges from theAppellate level to the District Court Associatelevel. Unlike legislation, resolutions that are notacted on within 50 days of introduction auto-matically take effect.

Both chambers adjourned on that 50th daybefore any action could be taken. Therefore, therecommendation of the JCC remains in tact,even though amendments reducing the recom-mendations had passed in committee. Accordingto Elizabeth Moss, legal counsel with the HouseAppropriations Committee, the salary increaseswill go into effect beginning July 1 2005.

The proposed increases will be phased in asfollows: 15% in fiscal 2006, 25% in fiscal 2007,30% in fiscal 2008, and 30% in fiscal 2009. ByJuly 2009, annual salaries will range from$181,352 for the Chief Appellate Judge to$127,252 for a District Court Associate Judge.

Judges will not benefit, however, from a 2percent Cost of Living adjustment that GovernorEhrlich has proposed for State employees effec-tive July 2006. Additionally, the increases affectState’s Attorney’s, Public Defenders and mem-bers of the Workmen’s CompensationCommission as their salaries are tied into apercentage of the judicial salaries.

General fund expenditures will increase byapproximately $1.18 million in FY 2006; thisincrease reflects all affected salaries and fringebenefits, including State officials whose salariesare tied to judges.

Carmen Amedori, Parole Commissioner

Legislative Update

Thirty-two bills relating to Parole and Proba-tion have been dropped in the hopper this year.Issues include lifers getting parole, diminutioncredits and parole eligibility for sex offendersand the Prohibition Against Probation BeforeJudgment for sex offenders.

HB 365-Criminal Procedure-Life Imprisonment-Grant of Parole

This bill provides that inmates serving lifesentences with the possibility of parole may beparoled if they have earned at least 1,500 dimi-nution credits and the parole is granted by amajority of the Maryland Parole Commission orthe Board of Review for the Patuxent Institution.The bill repeals the requirement that such aninmate may only be paroled with the approvalof the Governor. The impetus of the legislationbegan under the Glendening administration. OnSeptember 1, 1995, Governor Glendening statedthat he would approve parole for inmates sen-tenced to life imprisonment only if the inmateswere very old or terminally ill. He directed theParole Commission not to recommend parole forinmates serving life sentences.

During those years, several court casesemerged wherein it was ruled only the legisla-ture could change the process as it was theGovernor’s prerogative. On February 17, 2005,Commissioner Amedori testified against this billon behalf of the Department of Public Safety andCorrectional Services. At the hearing, she statedto its sponsor, Delegate Clarence “Tiger” Davisand the members of the House Judiciary Com-mittee that the bill is unnecessary due to the factGovernor Ehrlich and his administration reviewlife sentences and take them very seriously inhis approach to ensure that justice has beendone and continues to be done in addition toensuring public safety. As in previous years, thelegislation was given an Unfavorable vote.

9

Maybe Next Year ....

HB271-Circuit Court Judges-Election and Term of OfficeThis bill proposes an amendment to the Maryland Constitution to alter the method of selection

and tenure of circuit court judges. The bill proposes that circuit court judges be selected by guber-natorial appointment, subject to confirmation by the Senate, followed by approval or rejection viaretention election by the voters. The bill decreases the term of office from 15 years followingelection to 10 years following election. On 2/21/05 voted Unfavorable by House Judiciary - Com-panion SB167 was withdrawn by sponsor in Senate JPR.

SB253/HB292-State Employee Health and Welfare Benefits Program-Judges’ Retirement System-Eligibility-Surviving Spouse or Dependent Child

This bill authorizes surviving spouses or dependent children of specified members or retirees ofthe Judges’ Retirement System to enroll and participate in specified health insurance benefitsunder the State Employee and Retiree Health and Welfare Benefits Program; providing that speci-fied surviving spouses or dependent children are eligible for specified State subsidies. On 3/14/05voted Unfavorable by House Appropriations and Senate Budget and Tax.

NOTE: Deadline for this issue of Back Bench was March 31. The last day of Session is April 11.This update contains highlights of 2005 Legislation as it pertains to the Judiciary and Parole andProbation. All legislation can be viewed at www.mlis.state.md.us and click on to bill status. Search by subject matter, number or sponsor.

Melanie Brock has been appointed asMaryland’s Deputy Compact Administrator. Ms.Brock brings many years of experience to theInterstate Compact office; her knowledge andbackground in parole and probation will ensurethat Maryland continues to set the standard forexcellence in compact services. The InterstateCompact Office has recently relocated to 2100Guilford Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21218; Ms.Brock can be reached there at (443) 263-3728.

Former Deputy Compact Administrator, FredMatthews, has announced his plans to retire laterthis summer, but in the interim, will serve asinterstate compact trainer. Mr. Matthews isprimarily responsible for training DPP staff oninterstate compact matters but is also available tomembers of the judiciary for interstate compactpresentations. Mr. Matthews will also continue toman the Q&A Hotline to give the Judiciaryinstant access to information that can help in the

Ask the Compact Administrator

sentencing of individuals who wish to transfertheir supervision to other states. The Q&AHotline number is (443) 992-2583. Mrs. Brock willcontinue to monitor the Q&A Hotline uponFred’s retirement and will be responsible forcarrying on our commitment to training DPP staffand other criminal justice partners in mattersrelating to the compact.

The new rules of the Interstate Compact forAdult Offender Supervision took effect January 1,2005. A copy of these rules, along with otherinformation is available at:

www.interstatecompact.orgThe Interstate Commission is preparing a

“bench book “ that will be helpful in determiningeligibility for interstate compact transfer. Thisbench book will be available later this summerand will be distributed to the judiciary.

Vernon Skuhr, ChiefBureau of Special Services

10

[Editor’s Note: Transfer of supervision between statescan be recommended by judges, not ordered. It is theresponsibility of the Department of Parole and Probationto provide the appropriate notice and obtain consent asexplained in Chief Judge Bell’s memorandum dated July8, 1999.]

The Interstate Commission for Adult OffenderSupervision, in partnership with the National Centerfor State Courts, is pleased to announce the publica-tion of the “Bench Book for Judges and CourtPersonnel”. This publication is intended to serve asa quick reference tool for judges, attorneys, andcourt personnel regarding the Interstate Compact forAdult Offender Supervision.

The “Bench Book for Judges and Court Personnel”provides an overview of the legal nature of inter-state compacts, offers the procedural historyregarding the enactment of the current InterstateCompact for Adult Offender Supervision, highlights

key terms and features of the Compact, and analyzes the legal implications of the rulesgoverning supervision transfer.

The “Bench Book for Judges and Court Personnel” can be accessed through the InterstateCommission’s website at www.interstatecompact.org or by linking directly to the PDFversion of the document at www.interstatecompact.org/legal/benchbook.pdf.

Bench Book for Judgesand Court Personnel

Ellen McMullen,Division of Parole and Probation

11

GenerallyInmates sentenced to the Division of Correction (DOC)are entitled to earn diminution credits to reduce thelength of their confinements. See Correctional Services(CS) Art. §3-701 et seq. Inmates sentenced to localcorrectional facilities are allowed credits under asimilar scheme. (CS 11-501 et seq.)

Term of confinementThe aggregate of all the inmate’s sentences—from thefirst day of the sentence beginning first to the last dayof the sentence ending last (“the maximum expirationdate”). (CS 3-701)

Types of diminution creditsGood Conduct credits: Awarded when the inmate isreceived into the DOC and calculated in advance fromthe day of commitment to the DOC through themaximum expiration date. (CS 3-704(b)). Awarded atthe rate of:

• 5 days per calendar month for inmateswhose terms include a sentence for a crimeof violence or a crime involving manufactur-ing, possession or distribution of CDS;

• 10 days per calendar month for all otherinmates. (CS 3-704)(b))

Work Task (Industrial) credits, Educational Credits, SpecialProject Credits: Awarded monthly, as they are earned, forparticipation in programs (CS 3-705 - 3-707)

Limits on earning diminution credits• For terms imposed on or after 10/1/92, a

maximum of 20 days per calendar month (CS3-708)

• For terms imposed before 10/1/92, a maxi-mum of 15 days per calendar month.

Revocation of diminution credits by the DOCIf the inmate violates the DOC’s rules of discipline, theDOC may revoke the inmate’s good conduct or specialproject credits. These credits may be restored in thediscretion of the DOC. The DOC may not revokeeducational or industrial credits. (CS 3-709)

Mandatory supervision release (MSR)Once an inmate serving a term of confinement of over12 months has earned a sufficient number of diminu-tion credits, the inmate is released on mandatorysupervision. While on MSR, the individual is subject tothe same laws and conditions as parolees, and issupervised by the Division of Parole and Probation.

The individual is on mandatory supervision until themaximum expiration date of the term of confinement.(CS 7-501)

Revocation of MSRIf the individual violates the conditions of mandatorysupervision release, the Maryland Parole Commission(MPC) may:

• revoke the release and require the individualto serve the balance of the term of confine-ment, less credit for time between releaseand revocation (“street time”) allowedwithin the discretion of the MPC;

• revoke any or all the inmate’s previouslyearned diminution credits.

If the inmate is sentenced to imprisonment for a crimecommitted while on MSR, and the MSR is revoked, thepreviously-earned credits may not be applied to theinmate’s term of confinement, even if the credits werenot revoked by the MPC. (Effective 10/1/02 forviolent crimes committed while on MSR and effective10/1/03 for any crime committed while on MSR) (CS7-401(d), 7-502(c))

Prohibition on earning additionaldiminution creditsAfter MSR is revoked, the inmate may not earn anyadditional diminution credits on the term for whichthe inmate was on MSR. The inmate may earn diminu-tion credits on any new sentences imposed after MSR.(CS7-504(c))

BENCHCARD: Overview of Diminution Credits

DisclaimerThis is an overview only and does not include all theprovisions of law that may be applicable to the calcula-tion of an inmate’s term of confinement. If you havespecific questions about the DOC’s calculation ofdiminution credits or sentences, you are encouraged tocontact:

Jodie Stouffer, DirectorCommitment & Victim Services, Division of Correction115 Sudbrook Lane, Suite 204Pikesville, Maryland 21208(410) 585-3345 Fax (410) 764-4025jlstouffer@dpscs.state.md.us

Judi Hemler-Cox, Assistant DirectorCommitment & Victim Services, Division of Correction115 Sudbrook Lane, Suite 204Pikesville, Maryland 21208(410) 585-3339 Fax (410) 764-4025jhemler-cox@dpscs.state.md.us

Jodie Stouffer, Director, Commitment and Victim Services, DOCJudi Hemler-Cox, Assistant Director, Commitment and Victim Services, DOC

Maryland Parole Commission6776 Reisterstown Road, Suite 307Baltimore, Maryland 21215-2341