Sanders v. State

¹⁸ Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On June 28, 1965, the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City filed in the Criminal Court of Baltimore a criminal information under Md. Code, Art. 27, § 88 charging Roger L. Sanders, the appellant, with the failure to support his wife. On October 11, 1965, the trial judge granted probation before a verdict and imposed as one of the terms of probation that Sanders, for a period of three years, pay the sum of $15. 1 a week to his wife through the Probation Department of the Supreme Bench, after Sanders signed a consent thereto as required by Md. Code, Art. 27, § 641. On May 16, 1966, the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, entered a decree divorcing Sanders a vinculo matrimowii from his wife, which decree contained no reference to the payment of alimony or support and did not reserve jurisdiction for future orders on the subject.

On October 7, 1968, a warrant for violation of probation was issued. On February 4, 1969, Sanders pled guilty of violation of probation in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and the trial judge entered a verdict of guilty. The trial judge also entered a “superseding order” apparently granting probation and directing Sanders “to pay $15.00 a week for Wife and $2.00 a week on arrears to be determined by the State’s Attorney’s Office.” At the hearing, Sanders explained that he was pleading guilty because he had not kept up the payments between October 11, 1965 and May 16, 1966 when he was granted an absolute divorce. The probation officer stated that as of January 20, 1969, Sanders had paid a total sum of $133. and that the. date and amount óf the last payment was $15. on January 25, 1966.

On appeal, it is contended the order entered by the trial judge on February 4, 1969 was in ..error in that it required payment for . support of .a wife subsequent to an absolute divorce which, completély terminated the obligation for support. ¹⁹ Relying on Brewster v. Brewster, 204 Md. 501 , 105 A. 2d 232 and Johnson v. Johnson, 199 Md. 329 , 86 A. 2d 520 the state virtually concedes the obligation would not ordinarily survive an absolute divorce when the decree does not grant alimony or reserve jurisdiction for the future. Marshall v. Marshall, 162 Md. 116 , 159 A. 260 and