Brown v. State

MURPHY, Judge. In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Robert Calvin Brown, III, Petitioner, was convicted of violation of probation. His violations occurred while he was a participant in the Baltimore City Adult Felony Drug Court program. After the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction, Petitioner requested that this Court issue a writ of certiomri to address the following questions: I. DO MARYLAND’S PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, INCLUDING THE BALTIMORE CITY ADULT FELONY DRUG TREATMENT COURT, LACK FUNDAMENTAL JURISDICTION?

II

DOES IMPOSITION OF A 35 DAY JAIL SENTENCE FOR VIOLATING A DRUG COURT RULE ³ FOLLOWED BY THE SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF PROBATION FOR THE SAME ACT AFTER THE SANCTION OF 35 DAYS HAS BEEN SERVED, VIOLATE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULES AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE? Petitioner argues that (in the words of his Petition for Writ of Certiorari): All of these problem-solving courts, including the one involved in the case at bar, have “team” meetings prior to any review hearing in open court. In these meetings[,] the team discusses whether or not sanctions should be imposed, [and] reports on poor behavior and non-compliance with the rules. Further, each team member votes on the sanction.

All of this is done in the absence of the defendant/participant/client. Maryland has long recognized the right of a criminal defendant to be present at all stages of a trial. Stewart v. State, 334 Md. 213, 224 , 638 A.2d 754, 759 (1994). As the United States Supreme Court observed, the right of a criminal defendant to be present at every stage of trial is “scarcely less important to the accused than the right of trial itself.” Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 455 , 32 S.Ct. 250, 254 , 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912).

The right to be present at trial is a common law right guaranteed by Article 5 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and is also “to some extent protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and is guaranteed by Maryland Rule [4-231].” Yet, the participant is excluded from meetings where his or her compliance with drug court rules is discussed. In short, these courts allow the judge to participate in legislating the entire problem-solving program, supervising the execution of the program, and then adjudicating whether or not participants within the program have violated the very rules the judge designed, all in clear violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. ⁴ Here, Mr. Brown was punished twice for one probation violation, once in each of two probation violation hearings and each time for the same acts. In the first [violation of probation] hearing[, which occurred on March 10, 2005, and which followed a “sanctions” hearing that occurred on January 6, 2005], the court imposed 35 days’ incarceration for his dismissal from [the Baltimore Behavioral Health facility,] and then, in a subsequent hearing [a “violation of probation” hearing that occurred on April 14, 2005], the court imposed an additional eight years’ incarceration. The decision of this Court in Parojinog v. State, 282 Md. 256 , 384 A.2d 86 (1978), makes it clear that the second sentence and punishment cannot stand. * * * What happened in this case was that the trial court imposed a jail term for Mr. Brown’s dismissal from BBH and then[,] after Mr. Brown had served that 35 day incarceration, the court re-visited the amount of incarceration to be reimposed for that violation and expanded its re-imposed sentence from 35 days to add an additional 8 years.

If this increase in re-imposed sentence can be tolerated, what would prevent that same judge from bringing Mr. Brown back to court after[,] for instance[,] 7 years’ incarceration on this reimposed sentence, changing [her] mind again and increasing [the] re-imposed sentence by two more years, three more years[,] up to an additional 11 years, a possible term under the original suspended sentenced] We granted the Petition. 406 Md. 579 , 961 A.2d 553 (2008). For the reasons that follow, we hold that (1) as the Baltimore City Adult Felony Drug Treatment Court is a division of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, there is no merit in the argument that this “problem solving” court lacks fundamental jurisdiction, and (2) Petitioner’s “double jeopardy” argument has not been preserved for our review. ⁵ I. It is clear that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City has “fundamental” jurisdiction to try persons charged with felonious violations of the Maryland Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. In Pulley v. State, 287 Md. 406 , 412 A.2d 1244 (1980), this Court stated: Since the word “jurisdiction” encompasses different meanings depending upon the context in which it is being used, we note that as applied to courts, unless otherwise modified, it “is a term of large and comprehensive import and embraces every kind of judicial action.” Landis v. City of Roseburg, 243 Or. 44 , 411 P.2d 282, 285 (1966) (en banc). Thus, it may, but does not necessarily always, refer to the “fundamental jurisdiction” of a court, i.e., “the power residing in [a] court to determine judicially a given action, controversy, or question presented to it for decision.” Fooks’ Executors v. Ghingher, 172 Md. 612, 621 , 192 A. 782, 786 , cert. denied subnom, Phillips v. Ghingher, 302 U.S. 726 , 58 S.Ct. 47 , 82 L.Ed. 561 (1937).

Accord, Urciolo v. State, 272 Md. 607, 616 , 325 A.2d 878, 884 (1974) (“the power to inquire into the facts, to apply the law and to declare the punishment for an offense”); Moore v. McAllister, 216 Md. 497, 507 , 141 A.2d 176, 182 (1958) (“poiuer of a court to render a valid decree”). For a fuller discussion of this concept see First Federated Com. Tr. v. Comm’r, 272 Md. 329, 333-35 , 322 A.2d 539, 542-43 (1974). “Fundamental jurisdiction,” as we now use that term, is the power to act with regard to a subject matter which “is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court, and is to be sought for in the general nature of its powers, or in authority specially conferred.” Cooper v. Reynolds’ Lessee, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 308, 316 , 19 L.Ed. 931 (1870). “If by that law which defines the authority of the court, a judicial body is given the power to render a judgment over that class of cases within which a particular one falls, then its action cannot be assailed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.” ⁶ First Federated Com. Tr. v. Comm’r, supra, 272 Md. at 335, 322 A.2d at 543 .

Id. at 415-16 , 412 A.2d at 1249 . In Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271 , 653 A.2d 436 (1995), this Court stated: The circuit court is a court of original general jurisdiction. Code (1973, 1989 Repl. VoL, 1994 Cum.

Supp.), § 1-501 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Accordingly, the circuit court may exercise all of the inherent powers of a common law superior court, except to the extent that its jurisdiction has been limited by law or transferred exclusively to another tribunal. Ibid. See County Exec., Prince Geo’s Co. v. Doe, 300 Md. 445, 453-454 , 479 A.2d 352, 356-357 (1984); Dorsey v. State, 295 Md. 217, 227 , 454 A.2d 353, 358 (1983); First Federated Com.

Tr. v. Comm’r, 272 Md. 329, 334-335 , 322 A.2d 539, 543 (1974). Id. at 287 n. 11, 653 A.2d at 444 n. 11. The petitioner in Parker asserted a claim for money damages against a judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City who had erroneously issued a warrant for the