Opinion
KEN-CR-19-1740 KEN- CR-21-457 KEN- CR-20-65 KNO-CR-20-542 KNO-CR-21-212 LIN- CR-20-403
04-08-2022
STATE OF MAINE v. GWENDOLYN WELLMAN Defendant
ORDER
William R. Stokes Justice, Superior Court
In a letter dated March 19, 2022, addressed to the undersigned justice, Ms. Wellman has raised the issue of why she is apparently not getting presentence detention credit of approximately 285 days applied to Docket No. CR-KEN-19-1740 (the lead docket with a straight sentence of 54 months as part of a "global resolution" of all her cases) for time she spent at the Knox County Jail. Ms. Wellman has stated that it was her understanding at the time of her pleas on May 25, 2021, that she would receive such credit on the "lead" charge and that she would not have pled guilty to the charges if she had been informed otherwise. The State has objected to any action by the court "awarding" such presentence detention credit, noting that "[p]re-detention credit is outside the scope of Rule 35"
The Law Court has been clear that a challenge to the award of presentence detention credits is beyond the scope of M.R.U.Crim.P. 35. State v. Phillipo, 654 A.2d 432, 433 (Me. 1995). This Rule "confers upon the sentencing justice 'limited authority to correct errors in the foundational facts on which the sentence is based.'" State v. Brooks, 589 A.2d 444, 447 (Me. 1991).
In response to Ms. Wellman's letter, the court has listened to the recording of the Rule 11 proceeding on May 25, 2021, which took a little over an hour to complete. The only mention of presentence detention credits occurred when the court was setting a date for the payment of Ms. Wellman's fines and victim compensation fees. In pushing the payment date out to 2026, the court noted that Ms. Wellman would be serving a 54-month straight sentence minus any credit for time served she was entitled to. Other than that comment, the subject of presentence detention credits never came up.
Perhaps typical of proceedings that were held remotely by ZOOM during the pandemic, the recording is not good. The court (Stokes, J.) could be heard well enough, but the other participants could not be, including AAG Sibley, Defense Attorney Sinclair and Ms. Wellman. It was easy for the court to understand what was happening during the recording, but the voices of the participants, except the court's, could not be heard.
At this point, there is no information before the court to suggest that the issue of presentence detention credits was part of the plea negotiations between the State and Ms. Wellman. Moreover, the court's sentence was not influenced by the issue of presentence detention credits for Ms. Wellman.
Under these circumstances, Ms. Wellman's remedy, if she believes she is entitled to be awarded presentence detention credits, is to file a petition for post-conviction review and request the appointment of counsel. The postconviction review statute is intended to provide a comprehensive and, with some exceptions, the "exclusive method of review of those criminal judgments and of post-sentencing proceedings occurring during the course of sentences." 15 M.R.S. § 2122. The term "post-sentencing proceeding" includes "an error of law in the computation of a sentence including administrative calculations of deductions relative to time detained pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 2305 . . ., which is the provision of law in the Maine Criminal Code that governs presentence detention credits.
Accordingly, treating Ms. Wellman's letter of March 19, 2022 as a motion to correct her sentence under Rule 35(c), the motion is DENIED.