State v. Thompson

Gilbert, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Apparently aggrieved at appellee’s acquittal by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on narcotic charges, an Assistant State’s Attorney opted to reopen a stet in another case that had been entered as the result of a plea bargain. The appellee, Robert Lee Thompson, vigorously resisted the effort to reopen the stet and filed a "Motion to Enforce a Plea Agreement.” The matter was heard before Judge Joseph I. Pines, and he granted the appellee’s motion. The State appealed.

The single issue posited by the State is "[w]hether the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal informations against Appellee as a result of its determination that removal of the cases from the stet docket would be unfair and inequitable.” — THE FACTS — On May 15, 1979, the State called to trial two Criminal Informations charging the appellee with violations of the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. Negotiations took place between the State and the appellee. It was agreed, according to Timothy Doory, Esq., an Assistant State’s Attorney, that "the ... [appellee, Thompson,] would make a good faith effort to provide some information to the cases that the district officers were interested in within the next 60 days, that the [State’s] case [against appellee] would then be, we would stet the case that day based on his assurance of a good faith effort.” ²²¹ Inasmuch as the stet was to be entered in open court, and because of the possibility of jeopardizing the appellee, the reason for the stet stated in the record "was because the State was not in a position to try the case at... [that] time.” The true reason, however, was made known to Judge Grady before the false reason was supplied in open court. Mr. Doory further testified before Judge Pines that it was agreed that if appellee fulfilled his part of the bargain, "the stet for all intents and purposes would have remained in effect.

The case would have never been recalled and would have just died its natural death.” On cross-examination Doory acknowledged that, to the best of his recollection, "there was no mention” of the effect on the agreement with respect to any subsequent offense. It was not a condition of the stet that appellee refrain from subsequent criminal conduct. We make clear that Mr. Doory was not the Assistant Prosecutor who sought to reopen the stet. Other testimony adduced by the appellee indicated that he had made good on his part of the bargain.

The effort to reopen the stet was made on January 9,1980, approximately eight months after it had been entered and six months after the appellee’s part of the bargain had been completed. The prosecutor resisted the appellee’s motion to enforce the "plea agreement” on the ground that "[w]e are dealing with a stet, not a plea bargain.” The thrust of his contention to Judge Pines was that because Thompson did not plead guilty to any charge, there could be no plea bargain. In short, he advanced the turbid theory that a plea bargain "involves a plea,” while a stet involves no plea by an accused. That argument is novel but unavailing.

The prosecutor in the instant case is the same one that unsuccessfully sought Thompson’s