Lambert v. State

MATRICCIANI, J. On November 19, 2009, appellant, James Lambert, was indicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on charges of first- and second-degree assault under, respectively, §§ 3-202 and 3-203 of the Criminal Law Article, Md.Code (2002, 2009 Suppl.). On March 24, 2010, appellant pleaded ⁶⁰³ guilty to assault in the second degree. 1 On April 15, 2010, the court sentenced defendant to three years of confinement, all suspended, and placed appellant on three years of supervised probation. On July 2, 2010, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which the court denied on August 10, 2010. No appeal was noted.

On September 8, 2010, appellant was charged with violating his probation. On October 15, 2010, appellant moved under Rule 4-345 to correct his sentence as illegal. On November 22, 2010, the court heard both matters, denied appellant’s motion to correct his sentence, and found him in violation of probation. The court then reimposed appellant’s suspended sentence and probation, beginning anew on November 22, 2010.

Appellant noted this timely appeal on December 17, 2010. Questions Presented Appellant presents the following question, which we have edited for clarity: Is a probation condition prohibiting direct contact between appellant and his wife, the domestic violence victim, an illegal sentence where the victim has expressed her desire to reconcile with appellant? For the reasons that follow, we answer no and affirm appellant’s sentence. Factual and Procedural History On September 26, 2009, appellant and his wife, Mrs. Lambert had an argument over the contents of a lockbox.

Appellant pushed Mrs. Lambert and she fell over a railing and down the stairs, injuring her head and abdomen. Accounts taken from Mrs. Lambert indicate that appellant pushed her down the stairs deliberately, while appellant maintains that he was ⁶⁰⁴ merely pushing her away from the lockbox and did not intend to cause her to fall down the stairs. Appellant pleaded guilty to second degree assault on March 24, 2010, and he was sentenced on April 15, 2010. At sentencing, appellant admitted that he had assaulted Mrs. Lambert in the past. 2 Although Mrs. Lambert did not appear, in a letter to the court, she explained that she did not wish to be present if appellant were sent to jail.

She informed the court that she could not remember the details of the September 26 assault, but she did not fear appellant and hoped to reconcile their marriage through counseling. The court sentenced defendant to three years of confinement, all suspended, and placed him on three years of supervised probation. The trial court noted the ongoing pattern of assaultive behavior between appellant and Mrs. Lambert. The judge further explained that he had been involved, as an attorney, in a case of repeated domestic violence that resulted in the victim’s death.

Consequently, the judge imposed a special condition on appellant’s probation that he “have no contact” with Mrs. Lambert during his probation period. On August 10, 2010, the court denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration of his sentence. At about that time, an anonymous tip led the State to discover that appellant and Mrs. Lambert had been communicating via telephone on a near-daily basis between May 17 and May 25, 2010. On September 8, 2010, appellant was charged with violating his probation.

On October 15, 2010, appellant moved under Rule 4-345 to correct his sentence as illegal. Appellant filed an affidavit from Mrs. Lambert in which she states that the no contact provision is against her wishes and “has grievously prejudiced and compromised” her marital relationship. The court heard both the violation of probation and appellant’s motion to correct his sentence on November 22, 2010. The court found appellant in violation of probation, denied his ⁶⁰⁵ motion to correct the sentence, and reimposed his suspended sentence and probation, now set to end on November 22, 2013.

Appellant noted this appeal on December 17, 2010, bringing the matter before us. Discussion Appellant first argues that the no-contact provision of his sentence was grounded on improper considerations and violates the statutory authority to impose “probation on the conditions that the court considers proper” under Maryland Code (2001, 2008 Repl.Vol.), § 6-221(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article (“CP”). We begin our review with the standard summarized by Judge Chasanow in Poe v. State, 341 Md. 523, 531-32 , 671 A.2d 501 (1996): A judge is vested with very broad discretion in sentencing criminal defendants, and is accorded this broad latitude to best accomplish the objectives of sentencing—punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. A judge should fashion a sentence based upon the facts and circumstances of the crime committed and the background of