Gillis v. Commissioner, Department of Corrections

Gilbert, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Although there are some people who believe that persons convicted of a crime should be automatically admitted to bail pending an appellate decision, 1 Maryland has adopted a different standard. In this State, there is no right to bail after a conviction, Bigley v. Warden, 16 Md. App. 1 , 294 A.2d 141 (1972), nor is there any precise formula, equation, or litmus paper test for the purpose of determining whether bail should be allowed in those circumstances. Each case must stand or fall on its own facts.

Washburn v. Sheriff, Cecil County, 16 Md. App. 611 , 298 A.2d 462 (2 973); Bigley v. Warden, supra. The instant case is an application by Frederick A. Gillis, Jr., for leave to appeal from a denial of bail by the Baltimore City Court. From the record before us we learn that Gillis was convicted of a violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substances laws and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. His attorney asked that the trial judge set a sum of bail pending the outcome of an appeal.

The judge set the penalty of the bail bond at $150,000. ²⁸ We infer from the dialogue between defense counsel and the judge that Gillis was originally released at the time of arrest on a bail of $10,000. Thereafter, the bail was increased by the trial judge to $75,000. Gillis did not post the bail and consequently was jailed prior to and during the trial. When the trial judge set the bail at $75,000 she observed that if Gillis posted the bail she would know that his involvement in the illicit narcotics trade was deep and that would be reflected in the sentence.

After the trial judge learned that Gillis had posted the $150,000 "appeal bond,” she, the very next day, held a hearing and revoked bail totally. The judge, during the course of that hearing, said that bail of $150,000 was decided upon the theory that it was well without the reach of the defendant. The judge, complaining that she had been "deceived” by Gillis’s failure to post the $75,000 pre-trial bail, stated that, "I told you [the attorney for the defendant] and I told him [the defendant] that I did not feel that this defendant should be released pending his appeal.” We think that what the judge was in effect trying to do was to pay lip service to the setting of bail, while at the same time denying it by fixing the amount in a sum well beyond the financial ability of the defendant. When the defendant or his wife arranged for the bail, the judge’s plan went awry.

The judge, in this case, dangled bail like the "carrot was dangled before the horse.” The defendant, however, unlike the horse, reached the carrot, but he discovered it was artificial. After the trial judge had revoked the bail, the applicant-defendant, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus (bail) in the Baltimore City Court. The hearing judge, in that court, observed, "[n]o abuse of discretion by the trial court judge” in revoking the appeal bond. We have an entirely different view.

Md. Rule 776 provides that after a conviction, the trial court may release a defendant on bail pending appellate disposition. In deciding whether to release a convicted person upon bail, the trial court is required to consider three factors: ²⁹ 1. The seven elements of Md. Rule 721d. 2 2. That the defendant is not likely to flee the jurisdiction or pose a danger to the safety of other persons or the community. 3.

That the appeal is not frivolous or taken solely for the purpose of delaying the execution of the sentence. If the trial judge, after weighing those three factors, decides that the convicted defendant is entitled to bail pending appellate review, bail may be set in any sum not excessive. On the other hand, if the trial judge concludes that the convicted defendant