Harrison-Solomon v. State

GRAEFF, J. Aaron Harrison-Solomon, appellant, was found guilty of various crimes on two occasions, one pursuant to a plea and the other by a jury. He was found, however, to be not criminally responsible (“NCR”), and he was committed to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DHMH”) for institutional care and treatment. On June 3, 2006, he was released subject to certain conditions, including that he remain on medication and submit to continued monitoring of his mental health. ¹⁴⁰ Several days before the Order of Conditional Release (“OCR”) was due to expire, DHMH sought a four-year extension of the OCR, asserting that: (1) appellant had indicated that he intended to stop taking his medication upon his release; and (2) appellant’s physician recommended against termination of the OCR. After the date on which the OCR was scheduled to expire, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County granted DHMH’s petition.

The court subsequently denied appellant’s Motion to Alter or Amend. On appeal, appellant presents one question for our review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows: Where appellant was committed to DHMH pursuant to a NCR finding and subsequently conditionally released, did the circuit court err in extending the OCR for an additional four years when its order issued after the date that the OCR was scheduled to expire? For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the issue on appeal relates, not to the facts underlying appellant’s convictions, but the extension of the OCR, we need not set forth the facts adduced at trial.

See Washington v. State, 190 Md.App. 168, 171 , 988 A.2d 61 (2010). Rather, we briefly will state the nature of the case, as well as the facts and somewhat complicated procedural history of the case that led to this appeal. On June 15, 1999, appellant pled guilty to two counts of assault in the second degree in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Case No. CT98-0278X. The court determined that he was NCR pursuant to Md.Code (1994 Repl.Vol.) § 12-111 of the Health-General Article (“H.G.”) and committed him to DHMH. 1 ¹⁴¹ On March 23, 2000, the court issued an OCR.

On December 21, 2001, appellant was indicted for, among other things, robbery, assault, and use of a handgun during the commission of a felony or a crime of violence. The initial OCR was rescinded, and the previous commitment to DHMH was reimposed. On December 12, 2002, a jury found appellant guilty, but NCR, of robbery and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. The court again committed appellant to DHMH, at that time pursuant to Maryland Code (2001) § 3-112(a) of the Criminal Procedure (“CP”) Article. 2 On April 25, 2006, an administrative law judge (“AL J”) held a conditional release hearing at Spring Grove Hospital ¹⁴² (“Spring Grove”).

She recommended that appellant be conditionally released for five years. On July 3, 2006, the circuit court, on review of this recommendation, granted appellant’s motion for conditional release. 3 The court found: (1) That [appellant] has a mental disorder; and (2) By reason of that mental disorder, [appellant] would not be a danger to himself or to the person or property of others if not confined in an institution for in-patient care of [sic] treatment, but would be such a danger if released into the community without the special conditions enumerated below. It ordered that appellant be conditionally released from [Spring Grove] subject to the following conditions, all of which shall be in effect for five (5) years: 1. [Appellant] shall reside at the Home Run Program[ 4 ] ... and shall follow all of the requirements set forth by the Home Run staff as well as the staff of [Spring Grove], Thereafter, any change in residence must be approved in writing by the clinicians of the Home Run Program (and [Spring Grove]) as well as the Court, and sent to the DHMH Representative and the Community Forensic Aftercare Program (the “CFAP”) prior to change. 2. [Appellant] shall be seen by mental health personnel at the Home Run Program. Should there be any change ¹⁴³ regarding any other community health program, permission must be obtained consistent with that referenced in paragraph one. 3. [Appellant] shall take psychiatric medication as prescribed by his psychiatrist and other physicians and shall participate in laboratory tests that are ordered for the purpose of monitoring the medication.

The OCR set forth multiple other conditions, including that appellant “shall not take illicit drugs or use alcohol,” “shall attend Narcotics Anonymous and/or Alcoholics Anonymous as frequently as directed by his therapist,” and “shall not own, possess, or use ... any firearm or weapon.” The OCR further provided: 16. During his period of conditional release, [appellant] shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, to the general supervision of DHMH, and to the reasonable requirements of DHMH pertaining to the conditions of release. 17. If at any time within the five (5) years of conditional release, [appellant] does not comply with any condition of release, the CFAP (Home Run and Mosaic, Inc.) and Alert shall immediately notify the committing court and the Office of the State’s Attorney and after a hearing under Md.Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 3-121 (2001) [appellant] may be recommitted to DHMH.

The circuit court entered its order on July 3, 2006, which by its terms was to expire on July 3, 2011. In 2009, the State petitioned for revocation of the conditional release. The petition listed three reasons: (1) appellant was not following the requirements set forth by his housing provider; (2) he had missed a medication injection; and (3) he went on an unauthorized visit with his mother. Following an administrative hearing on May 13, 2010, an ALJ issued a report, finding that appellant had violated the conditional release.

She noted, however, that appellant’s failure to follow rules of the housing program was merely his failure to attend “group grocery and laundry outings.” Al ¹⁴⁴ though the ALJ found that DHMH had met its burden to prove that appellant had violated his conditional release, she nonetheless stated: [I]n light of his compliance with treatment and medication since his return to [Spring Grove] and his articulated understanding of the conditions of his release, I recommend that he again be conditionally released. Based on the evidence, I find that [appellant] would not be a danger to himself or others or the property of others if released from confinement subject to ... conditions, all of which should remain in effect for the remainder of the original five-year conditional release period. On June 11, 2010, the circuit court ordered that appellant be “conditionally released from confinement subject to [certain enumerated] conditions all of which shall be in effect for the remainder of the original five-year conditional release period.” These conditions included, among other things, that appellant receive substance abuse and mental health treatment, and that he follow the recommendation of his mental health treatment provider, including taking prescribed medication. On June 28, 2011, less than a week before the expiration of appellant’s conditional release, DHMH filed an Application for Extension of Conditional Release, requesting that appellant’s conditional release be extended for four years, until July 3, 2015.

It attached an evaluation from a doctor who recommended against termination of the conditional release because appellant “ha[d] not developed any insight into [the] role of medication maintaining psychiatric stability,” and he had “announced his intention to abandon psychiatric treatment so that his mind can be free to think.” The record does not reflect any opposition to the Motion. On August 30, 2011, the circuit court issued an order extending the OCR “for an additional term of four (4) years to expire on July 3, 2015.” 5 ¹⁴⁵ On September 13, 2011, appellant filed a Motion to Alter or Amend pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-534. He argued that the court’s jurisdiction over him ended on July 3, 2011, upon expiration of the original term of the OCR. 6 DHMH argued that it filed the Application for Extension of Conditional Release on June 28, 2011, while the court had jurisdiction, and the court retained jurisdiction until it ruled upon that application. 7 The court agreed that it retained jurisdiction, noting that, when DHMH applied for the extension, it was the middle of summer, and there were logistical difficulties reaching all parties that made it impracticable for the court to have ruled on the application before the expiration of the OCR. It further noted that CP § 3-122 is “silent as to any statutory limits on the filing of applications as well [as] any prescribed time in which the [c]ourt must consider them.” The court rejected appellant’s argument that this case was analogous to a probation violation, where the court loses jurisdiction over a defendant if no violation occurs within the period of probation.

The court stated that “public safety concerns and concerns for the safety of the committed individual makes a conditional release from commitment very different from the release of a person who has been convicted of a crime or convicted and released from prison.” It explained: ¹⁴⁶ While the fear of additional punishment is the motivation behind probation, the public safety and an individual’s likelihood to harm himself are the motivations behind confining a person or of restricting a person who has been deemed not criminally responsible to [DHMH]. It follows therefore, that the Legislature could not have intended jurisdiction over the conditional release of a committed individual to expire the same way that jurisdiction over an individual who is simply being punished can expire. There are different objectives of these two different forms of supervised release. They cannot be met with the application of such broad limitation, period.

Nevertheless, [DHMH] submitted their request in a timely fashion upon receiving the report ... that indicated that [appellant’s] intention to cease taking his medication upon expiration of his period of conditional release. That the Court waited until the conditional release period had expired [ ] is of no consequence. Accordingly, the trial court denied appellant’s Motion to Alter or Amend. This timely appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW Appellant challenges the circuit court’s denial of his motion to alter or amend the order extending the OCR. We review the trial court’s decision on a Motion to Alter or Amend for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Mathias, 428 Md. 419, 438 , 52 A.3d 53 (2012); PMC Northeast, LLC v. BAA Maryland, Inc., 413 Md. 638, 673 , 994 A.2d 430 (2010). We note, however, “that trial judges do not have discretion to apply inappropriate legal standards, even when making decisions that are regarded as discretionary in nature.” Wilson-X v. Dep’t of Human Res., 403 Md. 667, 675 , 944 A.2d 509 (2008).

If the court fails to consider the proper legal standard, that constitutes an abuse of discretion. Miller, 428 Md. at 438 , 52 A.3d 53 . To the extent that our decision involves issues of statutory interpretation and questions of law, our review is de novo. Moore v. State, 388 Md. 446, 452 , 879 A.2d 1111 (2005). ¹⁴⁷ DISCUSSION Appellant contends that the trial court was not authorized to extend the OCR after it expired on July 3, 2011.

He argues that the court’s order of August 28, 2011, “was more akin to ‘reviving’ the [OCR], rather than ‘extending’ it, and CP § 3-122 by its express terms does not authorize the court to take that action after the original [OCR] has expired.” He analogizes his situation to that of a criminal defendant whose probationary term has expired, asserting that “the court’s power to take action after the court’s jurisdiction ends” is limited to when a violation of a condition of release occurs during the time the conditional release is still in effect. Thus, appellant argues, because he committed no violation of the OCR prior to its expiration, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to extend it after July 3, 2011. The State disagrees. It contends that the statute does not impose a time limit on an application to extend conditional release or the court’s ruling.

It argues that “the circuit court properly granted the motion to extend an [OCR] that was filed five days prior to the expiration of the order.” It asserts that appellant’s construction of the statute is unreasonable because it would produce an anomalous result: two similarly-situated defendants could have different outcomes where the State has timely filed a petition for revocation of conditional release if one was ruled on the day before expiration of an OCR but the other one was ruled on after its expiration. The State points out that the latter defendant could escape the consequences of the OCR simply because of court delays—even if by a day— under appellant’s interpretation of the statute. Before addressing the issue presented here, whether the circuit court had the authority pursuant to CP § 3-122 to extend appellant’s conditional release, we briefly discuss the statutory scheme set forth in Title 3 of the Criminal Procedure Article, entitled “Incompetency and Criminal Responsibility in Criminal Cases.” CP § 3-109 provides that a defendant may be deemed “not criminally responsible” for his criminal acts “if, at the time of [his] conduct, the defendant, because of a mental disorder or mental retardation, lacks ¹⁴⁸ substantial capacity to: (1) appreciate the criminality of that conduct; or (2) conform that conduct to the requirements of law.” CP § 3-112 provides that, with limited exceptions not relevant here, when a verdict of NCR is rendered, the court shall commit the defendant to DHMH for treatment. Unlike the disposition of a criminal trial, there is no requirement that commitment have a specific end point.

Rather, a committed person may become eligible for release if he or she meets his burden to establish eligibility for discharge (if the person is no longer a danger to self or others) or “conditional release” (if the person would not be a danger to self or others if released from confinement with conditions imposed by the court). CP § 3-114; Byers v. State, 184 Md.App. 499, 506-07 , 966 A.2d 982 (2009). See also Anderson v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 310 Md. 217, 222 , 528 A.2d 904 (1987) (commitment “continues indefinitely until the criminal defendant prevails at an administrative proceeding or a judicial release hearing or obtains a writ of habeas corpus”), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 913 , 108 S.Ct. 1088 , 99 L.Ed.2d 247 (1988). 8 Section 3-122, the statute at issue here, addresses a request for a change in conditional release, as follows: ¹⁴⁹ (a) In general.—(1) An application to the court for a change in conditional release of a committed person may be made by: (1) [DHMH] or the State’s Attorney at any time; (ii) the committed person not earlier than 6 months after the court ordered the conditional release, unless the court for good cause permits an earlier application. (2) The applicant for a change in conditional release shall notify the court and other parties, in writing, of the application and the reasons for the requested change.

(b) Burden of proof.—The burden of proof of any issue raised by the application for change in conditional release rests with the applicant. (c) Court action.—After the court considers the application for change in conditional release and the evidence, in accordance with § 3-114 of this title, the court shall: (1) change the conditions; (2) impose appropriate additional conditions; (3) revoke the conditional release; (4) continue the present conditions of release; or (5) extend the conditional release by an additional term of 5 years. (d) Reapplication.—(1) Not earlier than 1 year after the court action on the application for change filed by the committed person, and not more than once a year thereafter, a committed person may reapply for a change in conditional release. (2) Notwithstanding the time restrictions in paragraph (1) of this subsection, a committed person may apply for a change in conditional release at any time if the application is accompanied by an affidavit of a physician or licensed psychologist that states an improvement in the mental condition of the committed person.

In determining the scope of the court’s authority pursuant to § 3-122, we must apply well-settled rules of statutory interpretation, as follows: ¹⁵⁰ In statutory