State v. Dean

Melvin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this appeal by the State, the single issue presented is whether the Circuit Court for Caroline County was correct ¹⁵⁶ when it granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss two felony charges against him on the ground that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial — a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213, 222-226 (1967). In reviewing the issue of whether one has been denied a constitutional right, such as the right to a speedy trial, we must make our own independent examination of the record as a whole and determine for ourselves whether the right has been denied.

In speedy trial cases, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 530 (1972), identified four factors that courts should assess in determining the issue: (1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay. In assessing these factors and the weight to be accorded them in a given case we engage in a difficult “balancing test, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed” Id. 407 U. S. at 530 . See Wilson v. State, 281 Md. 640 , 382 A. 2d 1053 (1978), cert. den., 439 U. S. 839 . Length of Delay Both sides agree that the time clock began to run in this case on June 18, 1976.

On that date three arrest warrants were issued by a Commissioner for the District Court of Caroline County charging the appellee, Maurice William Dean, with breaking and entering, grand larceny and receiving stolen goods. The hearing on Dean’s motion to dismiss the charges was held in the Circuit Court for Caroline County on June 5, 1978. Trial on the merits had previously been scheduled for June 22,1978. The State concedes, and we agree, that the time between June 18, 1976 and June 5, 1978 (slightly under two years) “in the instant case triggers further analysis so as to require this Court to engage in the prescribed balancing test”.

Reasons for the Delay Different reasons for delay in prosecuting a defendant ¹⁵⁷ should be assigned different weights. Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U. S. at 531 ; Smith v. State, 276 Md. 521, 528 (1975). In this regard the Court of Appeals has noted in Jones v. State, 279 Md. 1, 6-7 (1976): “. . . fAl continuum exists whereby a deliberate attempt to hamper the defense would be weighed most heavily against the State, a prolongation due to the negligence of the State would be weighed less heavily against it, a delay caused by a missing witness might be a neutral reason chargeable to neither party, and a delay attributable solely to the defendant himself would not be used to support the conclusion that he was denied a speedy trial.” We now discuss the events between June 18,1976 and June 5, 1978 and the circumstances surrounding those events so far as we can determine from the record before ús. On the morning of June 15, 1976, Corporal Donald H. Cox of the Maryland State Police was called to investigate a breaking and entering and grand larceny at the North Caroline High School, in Denton, Caroline County, Maryland.

His investigation indicated that at least two unknown persons had broken into the school sometime after 3:10 P. M. the previous day and taken away various school band instruments valued at over $10,000. On June 18,1976, at 3:00 P. M., Corporal Cox received a call from a Wilmington, Delaware, police detective who informed him that earlier that day Delaware police had searched an automobile in Wilmington operated by Dean. The search of the automobile revealed numerous musical instruments matching the description of those stolen from North Caroline High School. The three Maryland arrest warrants were then issued by a Commissioner for the District Court for Caroline County.

In the meantime, however, Dean had been charged by Delaware authorities with receiving stolen property (the musical instruments from North Caroline High School) and was being detained in Delaware awaiting disposition of that charge. ¹⁵⁸ On June 21, 1976, Corporal Cox went to Wilmington with the Caroline High School Band Director and recovered the stolen property from the Wilmington Police Department. While there he contacted Dean who refused to waive extradition. Sometime between July 13 and July 30, 1976, the State’s Attorney for Caroline County initiated extradition procedures, pursuant to which the Governor of Maryland’s requisition for Dean’s return to Maryland was forwarded to the Governor of Delaware on July 30, 1976. See Md. Code, Art. 41, § 37 (1957,1978 repl. vol.).

By letter dated September 15, 1976, Delaware authorities notified Maryland that Dean and one Gary Price had been indicted in Delaware on “a charge of receiving stolen property and conspiracy in the second degree”, and that, “Due to the indictment... we cannot allow either Mr. Price or Mr. Dean to be extradited.” The letter stated that the Delaware trial was scheduled “within the next 30 days”. The letter suggested that “you file a detainer with the Delaware State Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware.” On September21,1976, the State’s Attorney, following the advice of Delaware, forwarded certified copies of the Maryland arrest warrants to the Delaware State Correctional Center as detainers. On September 22,1976, the detainers were returned to the State’s Attorney by the Delaware Correctional Center with a letter informing him that, “Subject Dean was released from our custody July 29, 1976 ...” and suggesting that “your warrants be directed” to the Police Chief of Wilmington “for service”. On September 28, 1976, the State’s Attorney wrote to a member of the Wilmington Law Department reciting his unsuccessful efforts to obtain Dean’s return to Maryland.

The letter ended plaintively: "Could you be of any assistance in telling us how to bring these men to trial in Caroline County?” The reply from the Wilmington Law Department, dated October 1, 1976, was a suggestion that “... you file Governor’s warrants with the State ¹⁵⁹ of Delaware, they will remain open for one year. If during that year the two men in question are acquitted or if a nolle prosequi is entered by the State in these matters, they will be immediately extradited. On the other hand, if they are convicted and sentenced to jail, you must then lodge a detainer against the two men. “However, before you take any of these steps, I suggest that you contact Richard McMahon, Deputy Attorney General, Justice Department, State of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware. Mr. McMahon will know the exact status of the two men and thus will be able to give you more information upon which you can base your decision.” On November 1, 1976, the State’s Attorney wrote to the Maryland Secretary of State’s office stating: “Several months ago our office submitted Extradition Papers on the above named two persons.

Said Extradition Papers were returned to your office by the State of Delaware. “There has now been a disposition of the charges against them in the State of Delaware. So that our rights under the Interstate Detainer Act are not compromised, would you please re-submit the Extradition Papers on the above named two Defendants for their return to the State of Maryland for trial.” The record does not disclose when the extradition papers were resubmitted to Delaware, but apparently it was sometime prior to February 4, 1977, for on that date the Delaware Department of Justice wrote to the State’s Attorney for Caroline County stating in pertinent part: “Your requisition is being held in abeyance per further developments”. Other than this cryptic message there is no further explanation in the record of the status of the Delaware extradition proceedings or of the disposition of the Delaware charges against Dean. The record reveals no ¹⁶⁰ further communication from Delaware concerning Dean.

Nor does the record reveal any further inquiry from Maryland to Delaware concerning him. On September 12, 1977, Dean voluntarily returned to Maryland “to see my people” and was arrested and detained in Queen Anne’s County on separate charges pending against him in that county. He testified at the dismissal hearing that prior to that time, between June 18,1976 and September 1977, he was living “the entire time in Wilmington, Delaware”. He said that the Sheriff of Queen Anne’s County informed him at the time of his arrest that there were also “warrants for my arrest from Caroline County”.

He said he then contacted the Public Defender’s Office “to ask for a faster speedy trial on the charges that was supposed to be pending on me in Caroline County”. On September 20, 1977, the State’s Attorney of Caroline County forwarded to the Queen Anne’s County Jail “Arrest Warrants issued in this County” for the appellee, Maurice William Dean, with the request that they “be filed as Detainers against the Defendant”. Presumably, proceedings were then had against Dean in Queen Anne’s County on the charges pending against him there. 1 On December21,1977, Dean was served with new warrants issued December 14,1977, re-charging him with breaking and entering, grand larceny and receiving stolen property, all in connection with the North Caroline High School incident that occurred on June 15, 1976. These new warrants were apparently issued because of the uncertainty of whether the original warrants had ever been served on the defendant and to allay any misapprehension that the Caroline County charges were not still open against Dean. ¹⁶¹ Dean requested a preliminary hearing on the three charges (all felonies) “in accordance with Maryland District Rule 727”.

The preliminary hearing was held on February 21, 1978, eleven days after he was sentenced on the Queen Anne’s County charges (see note 1, supra). The preliminary hearing resulted in a finding of probable cause. Thereafter, pursuant to Maryland Rule 727 i, the State’s Attorney filed a two-count information against Dean on March 15, 1978. On April 26, 1978, Dean filed a motion to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that he “has been denied his right to a speedy trial”.

Previously, on April 18,1978, the case had been scheduled for trial on June 22, 1978. After a hearing on June 5, 1978, the court granted the motion. It will be seen that the chief cause of the two year delay in this case was the defendant’s absence from the State during the 18 months period from June 18, 1976 to September 12, 1977. Citing Isaacs v. State, 31 Md. App. 604 (1976), the State would charge that entire 18 months delay to the defendant.

In Isaacs , at 614, we said: “Manifestly, appellant cannot avail himself of Barker and its progeny, when it is he, by his criminal acts in