Under Oregon law, "[earned-]time credits [ ] have the effect of reducing the sentence served." Burns v. Newell, 12 Or.App. 621, 507 P.2d 414, 415 (1973) (emphasis added); accord Oregon v. Berger, 284 Or. App. 156, 392 P.3d 792, 796 (2017) (holding that the statutory scheme that governs earned-time credits constitutes "a sentence reduction program" (citation omitted)). Only those prisoners serving sentences amenable to a reduction by law are eligible to obtain these credits.
When drafters use grammatically correct language that makes sense, we normally assume that they meant what they said. See generally State v. Webb, 324 Or. 380, 386-87, 927 P.2d 79 (1996) (applying "general grammatical rules" to interpret a statute, including rules about comma usage as relevant to the meaning of modifying clauses); Curly's Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture, 244 Or. 15, 21, 415 P.2d 740 (1966) ("Punctuation marks are a proper guide to interpreting a statute and in ascertaining the legislative intent."); State v. Berger, 284 Or.App. 156, 159-60, 392 P.3d 792 (2017) (recognizing that "the meaning conveyed through the grammar and structure" of statutory language should be considered "to ascertain the statute's plain meaning," and considering as part of construing the statutory provision at issue that the legislature "followed th[e] grammatical rules" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, in this case, we should assume that the drafter of the offer meant what he said, rather than positing a grammatical error to create an ambiguity.
In his second assignment of error, he contends that the court lacked the authority to deny him eligibility for "good time" reductions in his sentence under ORS 137.750(1). He acknowledges that we rejected the same argument in State v. Berger , 284 Or. App. 156, 392 P.3d 792 (2017), but argues that that decision is incorrect and should be overruled. We are not persuaded.
The Butler opinion is consistent with the opinions of numerous other courts that have essentially held that the series-qualifier canon, not the last-antecedent canon, applies if a comma separates a modifying phrase from a series. See, e.g. , Sullivan v. Abraham , 488 S.W.3d 294, 297-99 (Tex. 2016) ; State v. Rodriguez-Roman , 297 Conn. 66, 3 A.3d 783, 790-93 (2010) ; Kasischke v. State , 991 So. 2d 803, 811-14 (Fla. 2008) ; Kevin J. v. Sager , 128 N.M. 794, 999 P.2d 1026, 1028 (1999) ; In re Sehome Park Care Center, Inc. , 127 Wash.2d 774, 903 P.2d 443, 447 (1995) ; State v. Berger , 284 Or.App. 156, 392 P.3d 792, 795 (2017). Thus, considering the text, grammar, and punctuation of section 609.341, subdivision 7, one reasonable interpretation of the statute is that the phrase "administered to that person without the person's agreement" modifies all four nouns in the series that precedes it ("alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance").
Here, the judgment expressly provides that defendant may not be considered by the executing or releasing authority for such reduction in sentence or early release program, tracking the language of ORS 137.750. See State v. Berger , 284 Or. App. 156, 161, 392 P.3d 792 (2017) ("[R]eduction in the term of incarceration under ORS 421.121 for ‘earned time’ is a sentence modification program that the sentencing court may make a defendant ineligible for pursuant to ORS 137.750."). It states:
"(b) Participation in the adult basic skills development program described in ORS 421.084."In State v. Berger , 284 Or. App. 156, 161, 392 P.3d 792 (2017), we explained "that a reduction in the term of incarceration under ORS 421.121 for ‘earned time’ is a sentence modification program that the sentencing court may make a defendant ineligible for pursuant to ORS 137.750." ORS 137.750(1) provides:
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.PER CURIAMAffirmed. State v. Berger , 284 Or.App. 156, 392 P.3d 792 (2017).
PER CURIAMAffirmed. State v. Berger, 284 Or App 156, 392 P3d 792 (2017).
Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Flynn, Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.PER CURIAMAffirmed. State v. Berger , 284 Or.App. 156, 392 P.3d 792 (2017).
PER CURIAMAffirmed. State v. Berger, 284 Or App 156, ___ P3d ___ (2017).