Glen C. Harrington III v. State of Maine, 96 A.3d 696

Harrington pleaded guilty in Aug. 2012, was sentenced to 48 months, and received notice he was eligible for up to 7 days/month good-time credits plus an additional 2 days/month for participation in transition-plan programs "in the last year" of his sentence pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1253(10)(B).
Harrington filed a post-conviction petition seeking the additional 2 days/month for the entire sentence, arguing the Department of Corrections’ policy limiting the transition-plan credit to inmates with one year or less remaining was reviewable in post-conviction proceedings.
The post-conviction court summarily dismissed his petition, concluding the Department’s decision was a “calculation[] of good time” excluded from post-conviction review under 15 M.R.S. §§ 2121(2) and 2123-A.
Harrington appealed; the question certified was whether the DOC’s decision limiting availability of the transition-plan credit is a "calculation[]" of good-time credits excluded from post-conviction review.
The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, considered plain meaning, statutory context, and legislative history, and noted inmates may seek administrative review under the Maine Administrative Procedure Act.
The court affirmed dismissal, holding the DOC decision falls within the statutory exception for "calculations" of good-time credits and thus is not cognizable in post-conviction proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOC’s policy limiting transition-plan good-time credits to inmates with ≤1 year remaining is a "calculation[] of good time" excluded from post-conviction review	Harrington: "Calculation" means only arithmetic computation of days eligible, not the discretionary decision whether to offer a program or when	State: DOC’s decision about program availability and awarding credits is a discretionary calculation of good-time credits and therefore excluded from post-conviction review; administrative review via the APA is appropriate	Court: Affirmed the dismissal; DOC’s action is a "calculation[]" excluded from post-conviction review and is reviewable administratively under the APA

State v. Harris, 730 A.2d 1249 (Me. 1999) (standard of de novo review for statutory interpretation)
Joyce v. State, 951 A.2d 69 (Me. 2008) (legislative intent and plain-meaning construction principles)
State v. Fournier, 617 A.2d 998 (Me. 1992) (avoid constructions that are absurd or inconsistent with statutory scheme)
State v. Stevens, 912 A.2d 1229 (Me. 2007) (construe statute in context of whole scheme; consult legislative history only if ambiguous)
FPL Energy Me. Hydro LLC v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 926 A.2d 1197 (Me. 2007) (deference to agency statutory interpretations)
Roderick v. State, 79 A.3d 368 (Me. 2013) (upheld DOC policy limiting transition-plan credit to inmates with less than one year remaining)