Gentry v. Warden, Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility
163 N.H. 280
| N.H. | 2012Background
- Gentry, a parolee, was arrested for a parole violation on Oct 13, 2010 and held in custody until a revocation hearing on Dec 7, 2010.
- Post hearing, the parole board recommitted him to prison for 90 days under RSA 651-A:19, I (Supp. 2010).
- Gentry sought credit for the 55 days pre-hearing confinement against the 90-day recommitment period; the board denied, and the Superior Court upheld.
- The issue centers on how RSA 651-A:19 should credit pre-arrest/pre-revocation confinement: against the 90-day period or against the maximum sentence.
- The court applies de novo review to statutory interpretation, examining plain language and the statutory scheme, focusing on expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
- RSA 651-A:17 provides that recommitment begins after a revocation hearing, reinforcing the separation between the 90-day period and the maximum sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creditability of pre-hearing confinement against 90-day period | Gentry argues pre-hearing time reduces the 90-day recommitment | Board argues pre-hearing time is creditable only to the maximum sentence | Credit applied to maximum sentence, not the 90-day period |
| Use of expressio unius in interpreting RSA 651-A:19 | Doctrine undermines the trial court's view | Doctrine supports limiting credit to maximum sentence | Statute interprets credit as reducing maximum sentence only |
| Effect of RSA 651-A:17 on recommitment timing | Recommitment and maximum sentence are linked | Recommitment begins after revocation hearing, supporting distinct credit scope | Recommitment begins after hearing; pre-hearing credit not applied to 90-day period |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beauchemin, 161 N.H. 654 (N.H. 2011) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning in NH appellate review)
- New Hampshire Health Care Assoc. v. Governor, 161 N.H. 378 (N.H. 2011) (read statutory language in context of entire scheme; avoid isolated terms)
- People v. Idziak, 773 N.W.2d 616 (Mich. 2009) (relevance to abandoning strict timing claims in parole contexts)