 |
| We're not entirely sure what is going on here. |
By Elizabeth Kruska
For all our gentle readers unfamiliar with the Vermont Department of Corrections’ phenomenon known as “work camp,” I’ll explain how this works. It’ll be helpful for future reference throughout the course of this summary.
In Vermont we have what’s known as “truth in sentencing” which is that if someone gets a sentence, that’s their sentence. There’s no longer “good time” which is a way to reduce someone’s sentence. There are some places where it’s basically understood that if you get a 1 year sentence you serve 8 months. Vermont is not such a place. Well, subject to some minor exceptions, and work camp is one of those exceptions.
Certain offenders with nonviolent offenses and/or nonviolent records might be allowed to go to work camp. It’s exactly what it sounds like. It’s a part of one (sometimes more than one) correctional facility where sentenced inmates get to work in order to earn “day-for-day” credit toward their sentences. This is arguably a good thing. Inmates who are eligible want to go to work camp and once they’re there, they want to stay. Participants get not only the benefit of credit toward their sentences but also get to spend their days working and being productive. The state benefits because it gets some people out of jail sooner, thus costing less, while having inmates work on certain state projects, also costing less. I once got to see the license plate shop when the women were making plates and signs at the Windsor Farm. It was very cool.
Anyway, when someone is serving a sentence, he or she is in the custody of the Department of Corrections. That means the Department of Corrections is in control of most aspects of the inmate’s life, including whether or not that person gets to go to the work camp.
That takes us to Mark Clark. He was sentenced for a DUI 4 which, on its face, is probably something that would not make him ineligible for work camp. He negotiated a sentence with the state, and on his plea agreement was awarded a “work camp recommendation.”
Now, it’s really nice to have a recommendation, but that doesn’t mean the Department of Corrections has to follow that recommendation. Also, someone who doesn’t have a work camp recommendation from the court isn’t necessarily barred from work camp participation if the Department of Corrections finds that person eligible.
I often think about work camp recommendations like when I was a kid and I’d ask my mom if I could go to the movies. “We’ll see.”
Mr. Clark resolved his case and got the sentencing recommendation of a “we’ll see” in the form of a work camp recommendation. And really, it probably seemed pretty likely he’d get to go to the work camp, since his case was a DUI 4, which is generally the kind of case that would not make someone ineligible.
That’s not how this worked out, obviously.
It would appear that Mr. Clark also had a prior violent offense on his record—an assault on a law enforcement officer. This apparently kept him out of the work camp.
So, Mr. Clark, feeling aggrieved by this decision, filed the appropriate agency-level grievances, and when that didn’t work, filed a petition with the civil court seeking relief. His argument was that he was promised that he’d get to go to the work camp during sentencing. He argues that it was unfair that he’d been kept out of the work camp based on a prior violent offense because another prisoner got to go despite the fact that person had a bank robbery on his record.
The court denied his request. He appeals, and SCOV affirms.
Mr. Clark tries to make an equal protection argument on appeal. He didn’t make the argument below. SCOV, unsurprisingly, says he didn’t preserve the argument so they aren’t hearing it.
Oh, practice pointer. Make your record below. If something comes up on appeal and you didn’t make your record, you may be out of luck.
Anyway, SCOV looks at the actual plea agreement which contained the “we’ll see” in the form of “work camp recommendation” and said “recommendation” doesn’t equal “promise.” Mr. Clark might have understood that the recommendation would make his placement (and subsequent benefit) at work camp likely. But a promise it was not.
Programming decisions and requirements generally are not reviewable by courts, so in SCOV’s view, the trial court properly denied his request.
Comments
Post a Comment