Bryant v. State

MOYLAN, Judge. The appellant, Charles R. Bryant, was initially convicted of driving while intoxicated and related offenses. He was ultimately placed on probation for three years and ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 and court costs of $135. He entered into an agreement with his probation officer to make payment at the rate of $35 per month.

This appeal arises from a judgment by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that the appellant violated the terms of his probation by failing to make the scheduled payments. The appellant was ordered to serve the remaining portion of the original sentence. The sole issue on appeal is whether the judge abused his discretion by revoking the appellant’s probation. Cases such as this pose an agonizing problem for the courts.

On the one hand, resources do not permit or justify a lengthy adversary hearing. Since probation is a matter of grace, the obligation is properly upon the probationer either to fulfill the conditions of probation or to satisfy the court that there was a good reason for noncompliance with those conditions. Humphrey v. State, 290 Md. 164, 167-168 , 428 A.2d 440 (1981). We do not retreat from that principle.

On the other hand, some allowance must be made for the physical, mental, educational, and/or cultural inadequacies of some probationers, and the probation-revocation system must constantly guard against allowing itself to become an assembly line. The appellant, initially placed on probation on March 26, 1985, remained on good behavior for the 18 months between then and his probation revocation hearing. No charge was brought by the Probation Department that he failed to keep scheduled appointments. The charge was that, save only a token payment of $20 on one occasion, he made no effort to pay the $1,135.

The appellant interposed a claim of financial inability to make the payments. The information supplied by the probation officer was painfully skimpy. Introduced into evidence was an agree ¹⁴⁶ ment, signed by the appellant, to pay $35 per month beginning on April 26, 1985. The agreement, however, made little sense in that the appellant was incarcerated at the time he signed the agreement and was not released until August 16,1985.

Concededly, the ultimate finding of delinquency was for a period of time following that release from jail, but the pro-forma nature of the agreement itself throws light on the routine, impersonal, and assembly-line handling of the probationer’s obligations. The appellant, a 50-year-old man with a fifth-grade education, took the stand and testified that shortly after his release from jail he broke his leg, was hospitalized at the Bon Secours Hospital, and was in a cast for a period of some months. There was no indication that the appellant’s testimony in this regard was disbelieved by the trial judge. Indeed, on the occasion of a subsequent visit of the appellant to his probation officer, he came in with a bruised leg and complained to the probation officer about it.

The appellant’s