Spielman v. State

COUCH, Judge. In Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 155 , 438 A.2d 490 (1981), we held that under Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol., 1980 Cum.Supp.), Article 27, § 640, a defendant convicted of a crime could not be ordered to make restitution to a third party payor, such as private insurance companies. In appar ⁶⁰⁵ ent response to that ruling the Legislature, by Chapter 477, Laws of 1982, effective July 1, 1982, specifically provided that such an order could be made to provide for payment to third party payors, if they have made payment to the victim to compensate for the loss. 1 The question now before us is whether the statute, as amended, may be applied to a criminal case where the offense was committed prior to July 1,1982 but the sentencing took place thereafter. We hold that the amended statute cannot be applied retroactively.

The facts giving rise to the question presented by this case are uncontradicted. The case proceeded in the Circuit Court for Carroll County on an agreed statement of facts. Essentially, that statement demonstrated that the appellants engaged in five instances of malicious destruction of property in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1982 RepLVol.), Article 27, § 111. 2 3 Monetary damages were shown as to the indi ⁶⁰⁶ vidual owners, as well as their respective insurance companies. Upon finding appellants guilty the court sentenced each defendant to consecutive six month sentences on each count.

Pursuant to an agreement between appellants and the state, which the court accepted, these sentences were suspended and appellants placed on supervised probation for three years. The court also ordered restitution to be made to the individual property owners and their insurers as a special condition of probation. While no specific objection was made to the restitution order, appellants’ counsel did raise the question with the court whether the amended statute could be applied retroactively. The appellants contend that the retroactive application of the amended provisions of Art. 27, § 640(b), is violative of state and federal constitutional ex post facto prohibitions since the date of their offenses preceded the effective date of the amendments to the statute.

On the other hand, the state argues that the amendment was a purely procedural matter and prospective application is warranted. The state also contends that restitution is not punishment and thus any change in the restitution scheme does not violate the ex post facto prohibition. Alternatively, the state argues that even if restitution is punishment, the amendment did not increase the punishment but rather affected to. whom the restitution was payable. (1) It is first argued by the state that since the amendment only determined who was a proper payee with respect to a restitution order, it dealt with a purely procedural matter and thus retrospective application was warranted, relying on State Commission on Human Relations v. Amecom Div., 278 Md. 120 , 360 A.2d 1 (1976) and Janda v. General Motors, 237 Md. 161 , 205 A.2d 228 (1964). ⁶⁰⁷ There is “no absolute prohibition against retroactive application of a statute.” Amecom, supra at 123 , 360 A.2d at 4 .

The question whether a statute operates retrospectively, or prospectively only, ordinarily is one of legislative intent. In determining such intent this Court has repeatedly stated, “[t]here is a general presumption in the law that an enactment is intended to have purely prospective effect. In the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, a statute is not given retrospective effect.” Traore v. State, 290 Md. 585, 593 , 431 A.2d 96, 100 (1981). See also Amecom, supra at 124, 360 A.2d at 4 ; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.

Co. v. Hearn, 242 Md. 575, 582 , 219 A.2d 820, 824 (1966). The amended statute under consideration here does not contain a clear expression of intent that it operate retrospectively. Nevertheless, this does not end our inquiry into the operation of the statute since statutory changes affecting procedure only, and not substantive rights, would apply to all actions, “whether accrued, pending or future, unless a contrary intention is expressed.” Janda, supra, at 168 , 205 A.2d at 232 (citation omitted). In arguing that the amended statute should be applied retroactively, the state contends that the amendment merely gave the court authority to order payment directly to insurance companies, and thus it only established a procedural mechanism affecting the remedy involved and did not affect substantial rights.

We do not agree. In Amecom, supra, we stated that an act is remedial or procedural in nature “when it provides only for a new method of enforcement of a preexisting right.” Id. at 125 , 360 A.2d at 5 . There we found the act did not simply constitute a “new method for enforcement of the undetermined right, but .. . instead [was] deemed itself to create in effect a new substantive right.” Id. There had been no determination of a preexisting right, therefore, the statute was held to apply prospectively.

Likewise, in the instant case we view the amended statute, providing for restitution payment to third party payors, as creating a right in them not existing under ⁶⁰⁸ the previous statute and, therefore, one of substance and not procedure. In addition to the creation of a substantive right, the cases applying rules of statutory construction to determine legislative intent speak of interference with substantive rights. In our view nothing is more substantive than the rights guaranteed by our State and Federal Constitutions. (2) In Janda , it was made clear that a statute will not be applied retrospectively so as to violate the constitutional provisions against ex post facto laws. 3 An ex post facto law is one which imposes additional punishment to that prescribed when a criminal act was committed.

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dali.) 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798); Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130 , 21 A. 700 (1891). In Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 , 46 S.Ct. 68 , 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925), the Supreme Court stated: It is settled, by decisions of this court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto. Id. at 169-70 , 46 S.Ct. at 68 , 70 L.Ed. at 217 . The critical question in this appeal, therefore, is whether the new statutory provision imposes a greater punishment for the offense ⁶⁰⁹ or makes it more