Mark Clark v. Lisa Menard, Commissioner, 194 A.3d 752

Petitioner Mark Clark is a DOC inmate who pled guilty to DUI (fourth offense) in July 2016; the plea agreement included a recommendation to work camp.
DOC deemed Clark ineligible for work camp because of an earlier conviction involving a violent assault on a law‑enforcement officer.
Clark grieved the DOC decision administratively; grievances were denied.
Clark filed a pro se Rule 75 complaint in superior court challenging DOC’s eligibility determination and claiming unfairness and (on appeal) constitutional violations.
The State moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, arguing work‑camp programming decisions are nonreviewable DOC discretion; the trial court granted dismissal.
On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the DOC’s work‑camp eligibility decision is a nonreviewable programming decision and rejecting preserved constitutional and liberty‑interest arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may review DOC work‑camp eligibility determinations	Clark argued the DOC wrongly denied him work‑camp placement despite a plea recommendation	State argued work‑camp programming decisions are discretionary DOC functions not reviewable under Rule 75	Held: Nonreviewable programming decision; dismissal affirmed
Whether Clark preserved an Equal Protection or other constitutional claim	Clark now asserts equal protection violation because another inmate (bank robbery) was in work camp	State argued Clark did not raise a constitutional claim below and thus waived it	Held: Constitutional claim not preserved for appeal (waived)
Whether plea agreement created a liberty interest entitled to due process (Sandin)	Clark argued the plea recommendation created a liberty interest in work camp/associated good‑time credits	State argued no liberty interest; plea only recommended placement and DOC discretion governs eligibility	Held: No liberty interest from plea recommendation; no due process violation established
Mootness based on subsequent sentence amendment	N/A (not Clark’s primary argument on appeal)	State argued claim may be moot because Clark’s mittimus was later amended and recommendation removed	Held: Court did not decide mootness because dismissal on nonreviewability made mootness unnecessary to resolve

Rheaume v. Pallito, 30 A.3d 1263 (Vt. 2011) (programming requirements and eligibility decisions are within DOC discretion and nonreviewable)
Charbonneau v. Gorczyk, 838 A.2d 117 (Vt. 2003) (work camp is a DOC rehabilitative program that can accelerate sentence reduction)
In re Girouard, 102 A.3d 1079 (Vt. 2014) (colorable constitutional claims can be reviewable even when implicating programming discretion, but must be preserved)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interests protected by Due Process Clause are limited to atypical and significant deprivations)
Conway v. Gorczyk, 765 A.2d 463 (Vt. 2000) (inmate has no liberty interest in rehabilitative programs that might reduce sentence)