REVISOR'S NOTE: Subsection (a) of this section is new language added to
avoid repetition of the full name of the "Howard County Department of
Correction" and the full title of the "Director of the Howard County
Department of Correction".

Subsection (b) of this section is new language added to clarify that this
section applies only in Howard County.

Subsections (c) through (g) of this section are new language derived
without substantive change from former Art. 27, § 645EE.

In subsection (d)(1) of this section, the reference to "allowing]" an
individual to participate in the work release program is substituted for the
former reference to "prescribing] that the individual may" participate in
the program for consistency throughout this article with regard to
discretionary language.

Also in subsection (d)(1) of this section, the reference to "confinement" is
substituted for the former reference to "incarceration" for consistency
throughout this article. See General Revisor's Note to this article.
Similarly, in subsection (g)(1)(ii) of this section, the reference to the
diminution of "the inmate's term of confinement" is substituted for the
former reference to the diminution of "sentence".

In subsection (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the reference to charges pending in
any "jurisdiction" is substituted for the former reference to those that are
pending in any "city, county, or state" for consistency within this subtitle.
See, e.g., §§ 11-708(b)(2)(ii), 11-709(b)(3), 11-712(b)(4)(ii) and (d)(3)(ii),
11-714(d)(3)(ii), 11-723(b)(3)(ii), and 11-724(e)(2) of this subtitle. The
Correctional Services Article Review Committee notes, for consideration by
the General Assembly, that the reference to charges pending in any
"jurisdiction", which includes charges filed in federal court, may be broader
than the more ambiguous reference to charges pending in any "city, county,
or state".

The Correctional Services Article Review Committee notes, for
consideration by the General Assembly, that subsection (d)(1) of this
section authorizes a "sentencing judge" to allow an individual to
participate in the work release program. Subsection (d)(1) is silent as to
what happens when the sentencing judge is unable to act on the matter.
The General Assembly may wish to amend subsection (d)(1) to state
expressly that, when the sentencing judge is unable to act, the authority to
place an individual in the work release program extends to other judges of
the committing court. See, e.g., §§ 11-704(c)(1)(i), 11-706(b)(2),
11-712(c)(2)(ii), and 11-717(d)(1) and (2). and (f)(3) of this subtitle:
Alternatively, the General Assembly may wish to amend subsection (d)(1)
to reflect the language of Maryland Rule 4-347, which establishes
procedures for hearings on alleged violations of probation. Maryland Rule
4-347 requires "[t]he court" to hold a hearing to determine whether a
violation has occurred. The rule also provides that "[w]henever practicable,