Commonwealth v. Byron DeWeldon (October 12th, 2011)
Docket No. 10-P-1357
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Facts: The defendant was found to be a SDP as defined in G. L. c. 123A, § 1,(2). In 1995, he had pleaded guilty in MA to indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14, and during the same time, he had pleaded guilty in Rhode Island to three counts of second degree child molestation. Both sentences were suspended and the defendant moved to California. Three years later he pleaded guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was extradited to Rhode Island, where he picked up another charge for child molestation. A Rhode Island judge found him in violation of probation and imposed the original 10 year sentence in State prison.
The defendant was released on parole in 2004 because he had participated in multiple rehabilitative programs and earned good time credit. Mass. then took him into custody, and he was charged with violating the terms of his probation. He was convicted to his original sentence; the judge granted the eight years he had served in Rhode Island, but did not grant any credit for good time earned because only sentences prisoners in Mass. can receive earned good time.
Issue #1: Should the defendant’s motion to dismiss the SDP petition be granted because he was entitled to the earned good time credit, which would have brought his sentence to expiration before the date of the Commonwealth’s SDP petition?
No. The judge was correct in establishing the starting date of the sentence. The DOC has discretion on whether or not to allow good time credit; a prisoner does not have any entitlement to earned good time. The DOC does not have to adopt the determination made by another state on the quality of the rehabilitation and on the quantity of credit attributable to those programs.
Conclusion: The DOC had the right to not grant the good time credit and thus the defendant remained a lawful prisoner subject to the process of the SDP petition.
Prepared by KP
