Maryland Montgomery County Driving Influence Confinement Revoked Lawyers Attorney

The appellant, Ray Terry Balderston, pled guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol. After considering the arguments put forth, the court sentenced appellant to the Montgomery County Detention Center for a period of 60 days, with 45 of those days suspended in favor of a two-year term of probation. As special conditions of probation, appellant was ordered to spend 45 days in a home confinement program; to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and to complete the White Flint Recovery Program, a private program for the treatment of alcoholism. At some point after he completed his 45 days in home confinement, appellant stopped going to the White Flint Recovery Program and was terminated from the program. After a hearing, appellant was found to have violated his probation and the remainde

r of his original sentence was reinstated. Defendant appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Maryland), which revoked his probation for driving under the influence of alcohol and reinstated the remainder of his original sentence without giving him credit for the time spent in voluntary home confinement.

Issue:

Whether the trial court erred in finding that appellant was not entitled credit, as of right, against his original sentence for the time he spent in voluntary home confinement?

Discussion:

This court held that certainly voluntary home detention, a situation in which a defendant can leave his home to go to work, and has freedom of movement and association within his home, cannot be considered "custodial," or the equivalent of custody. On the contrary, the reason appellant requested that he be permitted to participate in home confinement is because it is not the equivalent of custody, i.e., he could tend to his responsibilities and maintain his job. Thus, we reject appellant's argument that voluntary home confinement is the equivalent of "custody," and hold that, contrary to his claim, he is not entitled, as a matter of right, to sentencing credit for the 45 days he spent in voluntary home confinement. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that appellant was not entitled credit, as of right, against his original sentence for the time he spent in voluntary home confinement.

Conclusion:

This court hence affirmed the trial court's judgment which revoked his probation for driving under the influence of alcohol and reinstated the remainder of his original sentence without giving him credit for the time spent in voluntary home confinement.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firms unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content