Massachusetts Prisoner Denied Credit for Time Completed on Vacated Conviction

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has held that a prisoner serving time on an unrelated sentence was not entitled to credit for the completed prison sentence of a vacated conviction.

Marlon Holmes served approximately two years in prison for a drug offence in 1997. About three years after his release, he was again incarcerated on other charges. Holmes filed in the superior court to withdraw his plea in the 1997 conviction. The court granted the motion, which ultimately led to the vacation of that conviction. Subsequently, Holmes sought credit for the “dead time” to be counted toward his current incarceration. The Superior Court denied the motion and Holmes appealed. The appeals court, however, reversed, crediting him for that time. The issue reached the Massachusetts Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and on September 12, 2014, it held that despite Holmes’ time served on his vacated conviction, the “dead time” could not be credited toward a later, unrelated sentence.

Holmes pled guilty to illegal possession of a controlled substance in 1997. After serving a prison term and being released in 1999, Holmes committed new crimes in 2002, including, among others, two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. He pled guilty in 2003, and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of about twelve years each. In 2005, Holmes filed a motion in the Superior Court to withdraw his plea on the 1997 conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, which was granted in 2006. The charge for that offense was later dropped.

In 2011, Holmes filed for a time served on the vacated 1997 conviction to be credited toward his current sentences. The superior court denied relief and Holmes appealed. The court of appeals reversed and credited Holmes with time, holding that the prohibition against using banked time (served time from a vacated prison conviction) did not apply to Holmes as he had not known his prior conviction would be overturned when he committed the new offenses.

Nevertheless, upon review by the Supreme Court, it found that the appellate court’s reasoning was insufficient to credit Holmes with the time. The Supreme Court did point out that a similarly situated prisoner in a prior case had been credited for dead time on his new sentence, but that was only because his sentences had been related: he was still serving time on previous sentences when they were vacated, unlike Holmes who had completed his.

While recognizing that “a prisoner should not be required to serve ‘dead time’ on a vacated sentence for which he otherwise would not receive credit,” the Supreme Court held that “where, as here, a defendant has fully completed his sentence on an unrelated conviction, the need to prevent abuses associated with banking time outweighs any concern about unfairness arising from dead time.” See: Commonwealth v. Holmes, 469 Mass. 1010 (Mass. 2014).

Related legal case