State v. Sanders

Panel: Woodward, C.J., Arthur, Reed, JJ. Reed, J. ⁶⁰⁰ This case originated in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, where Travis E. Sanders (hereinafter the "appellee") was charged with sex abuse of a minor, sex offense in the second degree, sex offense in the third degree, and second degree assault in connection with alleged events that occurred between June 1 and August 20, 2013. After pleading not guilty and, in the alternative, not criminally responsible, the appellee was committed to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (hereinafter the "Health Department") on May 5, ⁶⁰¹ 2014, for an assessment of his competency to stand trial. That assessment resulted in a finding of incompetency, and the circuit court held a hearing on December 17, 2015, to review that determination.

Following the hearing, the court ruled that the appellee remained incompetent to stand trial and was "eligible" for Developmental Disabilities Administration ("DDA") services. The Health Department presents two questions for our review on appeal, which we rephrase: 1 1. Did the circuit court exceed its statutory authority when it ordered that the appellee "is eligible for DDA services"? 2. Was the circuit court's decision regarding the appellee's eligibility for DDA services supported by sufficient evidence?

For the following reasons, we answer the first question in the affirmative. Therefore, we need not consider the second question and shall modify the judgment of the circuit court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 30, 2013, the appellee was indicted on various sex offenses allegedly committed between June 1 and August 20 of that year. He entered a plea of not guilty and, in the alternative, not criminally responsible to each count on May 5, 2014.

On that same day, citing "possible mental retardation," 2 ⁶⁰² the circuit court committed ²¹⁸ the appellee to the Health Department for an examination as to his competency to stand trial. In a report dated June 5, 2014, Stephen W. Siebert, M.D., M.P.H., and Erik Lane, Psy.D., both of the Health Department, concluded that the appellee was not competent to stand trial. In an addendum to that report, Drs. Siebert and Lane also concluded that the appellee was a danger to himself or others.

Based on these conclusions, on July 23, 2014, the circuit court ordered that the appellee be committed to the Health Department until it was "satisfied that [he] is no longer incompetent to stand trial or is no longer, by reason of a mental disorder ..., a danger to self or the person or property of another." The Health Department subsequently admitted the appellee to Spring Grove Hospital Center (hereinafter "Spring Grove"), where he remained for care and treatment from July 29, 2014, through December 17, 2015. During the approximately thirteen months following the appellee's admission to Spring Grove, the court received four additional reports pertaining to the appellee's competency to stand trial. Three of these reports-a January 7, 2015, report by Christopher M. Wilk, M.D., a Health Department physician; a May 1, 2015, report by Melissa Blackwell, Psy.D., a Health Department consultant; and a September 2, 2015, ⁶⁰³ report by Bevin Merles, Psy.D., a Health Department psychologist-concluded with a finding that the appellee was competent to stand trial. Only Beverlie Mormile, Psy.D., a psychologist hired by the Office of the Public Defender, in a report dated July 9, 2015, found that the appellee was not competent to stand trial.

In addition, the court received a report by Eric Fielding, Ph.D., dated June 26, 2015. Unlike the others, Dr. Fielding's report did not address the appellee's competency to stand trial. Instead, pursuant to a court order of January 9, 2015, its purpose was to "clarify [the appellee's] diagnosis for treatment and discharge planning purposes." In February 2015, the appellee, with the assistance of Denise Leite-Finken, a social worker at Spring Grove, filed an application for DDA services. In a determination letter dated March 30, 2015, the DDA informed the appellee that his application had been denied because he did not meet all the criteria for "developmental disability," and thus, did not meet the statutory criteria for DDA services.

On December 17, 2015, the circuit court held a hearing to review its July 2014 determination that the appellee was not competent to stand trial. After the hearing, the court issued the following written order: ORDER It is this 17th day of Dec[ember], 2015, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County ORDERED: ²¹⁹ That upon consideration of the report of Eric Fielding, Ph. D., Spring Grove State Hospital Department of Clinical Psychology dated June 26, 2015 and the report of Beverli [sic] Mormile, Psy.D. dated July 9, 2015, it is the finding of the Court that the Defendant Travis Eugene Sanders, having been charged with the commission of a crime, remains incompetent to stand trial because of an intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) and remains a danger to self or the person or property of another, and it is further: ⁶⁰⁴ ORDERED, the defendant Travis Eugene Sanders is committed to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for placement in a Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) facility until the Court is satisfied the Defendant is no longer incompetent to stand trial or is no longer a danger to self or the person or property of others, and it is further ORDERED that the defendant Travis Eugene Sanders is eligible for DDA services , and it is further ORDERED that immediately upon receipt of this order, Spring Grove State Hospital Center shall transport the defendant Travis Eugene Sanders to the Developmental Disabilities Administration facility that the Department designates. (Emphasis added).

On January 19, 2016, the Health Department filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. DISCUSSION I. Eligibility for DDA Services A. Parties' Contentions The Health Department argues that because the circuit court's December 17, 2015 order places no limitations on the DDA services for which appellee is eligible, it "has the effect of mandating that Mr. Sanders be deemed eligible for DDA services following his release from commitment to the Department." Such effect, the Health Department asserts, is impermissible because "[n]o statutory provision of the Criminal Procedure Article expressly authorizes the circuit court to determine a criminal defendant's eligibility for post-commitment DDA services." The Health Department contends that in addition to its plain meaning, the structure and legislative history of § 3-106(b) of the Criminal Procedure Article ("CP") of the Maryland Code require us to construe the statute against the circuit court's order. The Health Department argues that any other reading of CP § 3-106(b) would put it at ⁶⁰⁵ odds with Title 7 of the Maryland Code's Health General Article ("HG"). In that case, the Health Department asserts that under Suter v. Stuckey , 402 Md. 211 , 231, 935 A.2d 731 (2007), Title 7 of the Health General Article, as the more specific of the two irreconcilable statutes, would apply.

Lastly, the Health Department contends that not only did the circuit court exceed its statutory authority in ordering that the appellee "is eligible for DDA services," but it also authorized the expenditure of state funds and usurped the discretionary functions of an administrative department in violation of the Separation of Powers Article of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The appellee responds that "[t]he circuit court's declaration that Mr. Sanders 'is eligible for DDA services' was consistent with the legal mandate of [CP] § 3-106(b)." In support of this argument, the appellee points specifically to the following statutory language: "If a court commits the defendant because of mental retardation, the Health Department shall require the Developmental Disabilities Administration to provide the care or treatment that the ²²⁰ defendant needs." CP § 3-106(b)(2). The appellee concedes that pursuant to HG § 7-403(b), in order for an individual to qualify for DDA services, he must, generally, satisfy the Health General Article's five-part definition of "developmental disability." However, because "intellectual disability" is defined as "a developmental disability that is evidenced by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and impairment in the adaptive behavior of an individual," HG § 7-101(k) (emphasis added by appellee), the appellee argues that the circuit court's finding that he was incompetent to stand trial due to "mental retardation" necessarily entailed a finding that he had a developmental disability. See supra n. 2 (explaining that in many legislative contexts, an intellectual disability was once called "mental retardation").

The appellee further asserts that the circuit court's finding regarding his eligibility for DDA services merely ensures that he "is not deprived of his constitutionally protected due process interests in 'conditions of reasonable care and safety.' " ⁶⁰⁶ (Quoting Youngberg v. Romeo , 457 U.S. 307 , 324, 102 S.Ct. 2452 , 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) ). Finally, the appellee contends that "[b]y its plain language, [CP] § 3-106 does not impose any temporal limitations on the DDA's duty, but simply provides that the '[Health] Department shall require the Developmental Disabilities Administration to provide the care or treatment that the defendant needs.' " Therefore, and because the Health General Article defines "services" as encompassing "residential, day, or other services," HG § 7-101(n), the appellee argues that "[i]t would be illogical to conclude that a defendant in Mr. Sanders's position is no longer eligible for DDA services simply because he is discharged from a residential facility." 3 B. Standard of Review "Where an order involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory or case law, our Court must determine whether the trial court's conclusions are "legally correct" under a de novo standard of review." Schisler v. State , 394 Md. 519 , 535, 907 A.2d 175 (2006). C. Analysis In Merchant v. State , 448 Md. 75 , 94, 136 A.3d 843 (2016), addressing another issue related to Title 3 of the Criminal Procedure Article, 4 the Court of Appeals explained that [t]he cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the real and actual intent of the Legislature. ⁶⁰⁷ A court's primary goal in interpreting statutory language is to discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by the statutory provision under scrutiny. To ascertain the intent of the General Assembly, we begin with the normal, plain meaning of the statute.

If the language of the statute is unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute's apparent purpose, our inquiry as to the ²²¹ legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written without resort to other rules of construction. We neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, and we do not construe a statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application. We, however, do not read statutory language in a vacuum, nor do we confine strictly our interpretation of a statute's plain language to the isolated section alone. Rather, the plain language must be viewed within the context of the statutory scheme to which it belongs, considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the Legislature in enacting the statute.

We presume that the Legislature intends its enactments to operate together as a consistent and harmonious body of law, and, thus, we seek to reconcile and harmonize the parts of a statute, to the extent possible consistent with the statute's object and scope. Where the words of a statute are ambiguous and subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, or where the words are clear and unambiguous when viewed in isolation, but become ambiguous when read as part of a larger statutory scheme, a court must resolve the ambiguity by searching for legislative intent in other indicia, including the history of the legislation or other relevant sources intrinsic and extrinsic to the legislative process. In resolving ambiguities, a court considers the structure of the statute, how it relates to other laws, its general purpose and relative rationality and legal effect of various competing constructions. ⁶⁰⁸ In every case, the statute must be given a reasonable interpretation, not one that is