Blackston v. State

WENNER, Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County denying appellant’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The question before us is whether the circuit court erred in holding that the District Court had jurisdiction over charges pending against appellant. Appellant contends that his election of a jury trial in cases involving identical charges subsequently nolle prossed by the State forever divested the District Court of jurisdiction over the charges.

As we disagree with appellant, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. BACKGROUND Appellant, James Marshall Blackston, was charged with battery, theft under $300, and malicious destruction of property as a result of certain events that occurred on December 18, 1989. Two separate statements of charges were filed against him. One on December 19, 1989, the other on January 11, 1990.

Appellant elected a jury trial in each case, and the cases were consolidated. When called for trial on September 10, 1990, all of the charges were nolle prossed by the State. On September 28,1990, the State filed a criminal information in the District Court charging appellant with battery, theft under $300, and malicious destruction of property. These were the same charges contained in the statements of charges.

When the criminal information was called for trial in the District Court on January 21, 1991, appellant moved to dismiss the charges, contending that the District Court lacked jurisdiction. The District Court denied the motion ⁵⁶⁹ but stayed trial pending appellant's petition to the circuit court for a writ of certiorari. Appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari on February 7, 1991. On December 3, 1991, after a hearing, the circuit court denied appellant's petition.

This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Section 4-301(b)(l) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the District Court over criminal cases in which the accused is at least 18 years old and is charged with the commission of a common-law or statutory misdemeanor. Pursuant to Section 4-301(b)(2) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, the District Court is also vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of Article 27, § 342. As we said earlier, after nolle prossing the statements of charges, the State filed a criminal information charging appellant with the same offenses that had been contained in the statements of charges.

All three offenses are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the District Court. See, Cts. & Jud.Proc. § 4-301. The battery and theft charges entitled appellant to a jury trial. See, Huebner v. District Court, 62 Md.App. 462 , 490 A.2d 266 (1985), aff'd, 305 Md. 601 , 505 A.2d 1331 (1986) and Kawamura v. State, 299 Md. 276 , 473 A.2d 438 (1984).

Clearly, upon appellant's election of a jury trial the District Court was divested of jurisdiction to try appellant on all three charges. Cts. & Jud.Proc. § 4-302(e). Appellant asserts that the District Court was permanently divested of jurisdiction when he elected a jury trial, even though the State nolle prossed all of the offenses