Wynn v. State

RAKER, Judge. In this case, we must decide whether a trial court, following a mistrial, may dismiss an indictment in a criminal case in response to the State’s violation of a pre-trial scheduling ⁴²⁵ order. The Court of Special Appeals held that the Circuit Court for Montgomery County erred in granting Wynn’s motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. We agree and affirm.

I. Around midnight on July 2, 2002, traffic was stalled on Interstate 270 in Montgomery County as construction compelled drivers to merge from three lanes into one. This case concerns two drivers from amongst the many who navigated the lane convergence that night. William Humphrey, accompanied by his six month old daughter, drove in the middle lane, and Kareem Wynn, accompanied by his wife, drove in the right lane. As Humphrey attempted to merge into the right lane, Wynn blocked his path.

Humphrey opened his passenger window and questioned Wynn about his driving. Wynn passed Humphrey. Humphrey then approached Wynn and again expressed concern about his fellow driver’s actions. It is at this point that Humphrey’s and Wynn’s stories diverge.

Wynn claims that he could not understand Humphrey’s comments, closed his window, and waved to encourage Humphrey to pass. Humphrey claims that Wynn pointed a semi-automatic pistol at him. Humphrey called 911 and reported his version of the events. Soon after, State Police officers stopped Wynn’s car.

Wynn acknowledged that he had a gun in his car, which he had a permit to carry in Pennsylvania. He denied, however, that he had removed the gun from the car’s center console that night, or even in the previous five months. Wynn was charged with first degree assault, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or a crime of violence, and transporting a handgun in a vehicle. 1 Wynn was tried ⁴²⁶ before a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The jury found Wynn guilty of transporting a handgun in a vehicle.

The jury deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial on the other two charges. Regarding those two charges, the court stated as follows: “Madam State, the Court will grant leave to the State 30 days to decide whether or not to proceed further in this matter. All right. On the determination as to counts one and two, then the Court will either defer on sentence if there is to be a further proceeding or to impose sentence if there is not to be a further proceeding as to count number three.

All right. “So from today, you have 30 days to elect and you do in writing in the form of indicating to counsel and to the Assignment Office if there needs to be a new trial set. It could go before any judge. It doesn’t have to come back before me. All right.” Forty-five days later, the court held a status conference, and Wynn moved to dismiss the outstanding charges.

The following colloquy ensued: “[PROSECUTOR]: Thank you. It is not a matter of recharging the case obviously. The charges are still out there and this is the first opportunity to get a trial date in the case. This is the first date set by the Assignment Office for all parties to come in and pick a date.

That is the purpose of the status conference. The date chosen by the Assignment Office is not an inordinate time, amount of time from the time the mistrial was declared. “THE COURT: Well let me ask this question. Did you file a request by Line that the matter be reset? “[PROSECUTOR]: I talked with the Assignment Office. They called me about a week after the mistrial was declared and asked if they could go ahead and schedule a status ⁴²⁷ conference date and I said schedule a status conference date. “THE COURT: Well, that is not requesting to proceed as to counts one or two or both. “[PROSECUTOR]: I assumed that by setting a status conference date we would come in and we would set a date to retry these two counts.

Frankly, one of the reasons the State has been waiting is that the main officer in this case is a member of the Maryland National Guard and it has been unclear as to whether he was going to be called in to serve. He’s in Iraq. I have been waiting to kind of find out what his status is. I talked to him again yesterday and he is still available.

This is the first time this has been set in for a date and I am ready to pick— “THE COURT: Well, I know it is the first time it is set in but all he had to do was file a Line that said the State elects to proceed forward on the trial in counts one and two or count one or count two. The problem is that no notice was given. “[PROSECUTOR]: I assumed that this would be sufficient to come into court today and pick a date. “THE COURT: ... the indication that I have is that this trial was held on the 11th. The mistrial was declared on the 11th as to counts one and two. Notices were sent out to all parties according to the Court file on February 14th notifying of a status conference regarding counts one and two on this date. “The Court notes also that the docket entry granted leave to the State for 30 days to determine whether they intended to proceed on counts one and two and/or I should say count one and/or two. “The file contains nothing else and 1 have received nothing else.

Anything that you can enlighten me on? “[PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, I didn’t file a Line. ⁴²⁸ “THE COURT: Okay. All right. I think that omission is fatal frankly, and accordingly, counts one and two will stand as dismissed with prejudice.” The State noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. In an unreported opinion, the court reversed, holding that the Circuit Court did not have the authority to dismiss the charges against Wynn.

We granted Wynn’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. 384 Md. 449 , 863 A.2d 997 (2004). Wynn raises the following issue before this Court: “Whether a trial judge has the inherent power to dismiss an indictment or other charging document for the State’s violation of a scheduling order entered following a mistrial and without objection by the State, absent a violation of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial or a violation of the 180-day rule contained in Maryland Rule 4-271 (the Hicks Rule)?” II. Wynn argues that a trial court has an implied power to dismiss criminal cases as a remedy for the State’s violation of a scheduling order. Wynn describes this asserted power as a “necessary corollary” of the court’s inherent authority to control its own docket.

Without the power to dismiss, Wynn contends, a trial court would have no recourse when the State violates its scheduling order and, thus, could not enforce its role of administering justice. Wynn continues that the decision of the Circuit Court was a proper employment of its discretion. He claims that the prosecutor’s delay caused him severe anxiety and distress, because he did not know whether he would face a new trial, potential convictions, and imprisonment. The State responds that a trial court does not possess inherent authority to dismiss a criminal case for the violation of a scheduling order.

A trial court’s ability to control its docket by holding a prosecutor to a scheduling order does not lead to the conclusion that a court may dismiss charges when ⁴²⁹ the State does not comply with a scheduling order. In the alternative, the State argues that even if a trial court has inherent authority to dismiss a case to control its docket, the court may not dismiss the case with prejudice. Finally, the State argues that even if a trial court has the power to dismiss a case with prejudice for violating a scheduling order, the Circuit Court abused its discretion in this case. The State asserts that given the short interval between the mistrial and status conference and the prosecutor’s apparent good intentions, the Circuit Court acted to teach the State a lesson — an inappropriate reason for dismissing the State’s charges.

III

This case concerns the scope of the inherent power of the trial court to control its docket. Wynn argues that the inherent authority of the trial court to control its docket implies the power to dismiss criminal prosecutions for scheduling order violations. We disagree. Inherent authority should be applied only when necessary to the performance of the judicial function.

The interest of the trial court in enforcing its scheduling order through the invocation of the ultimate remedy of dismissal does not support such a severe constraint on the broad discretion of the State, representing the interests of society, to prosecute eases. Accordingly, we hold that the Circuit Court had no power to remedy the State’s scheduling order violation by dismissing the indictment. The State had discretion to retry Wynn on the surviving charges after the jury deadlocked and the court declared a mistrial. It is well-established that, ordinarily, “when a mistrial has been declared as the result of a manifest necessity or with the consent of the defendant, retrial of the same charge is not prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause.” State v. Griffiths, 338 Md. 485, 490 , 659 A.2d 876, 879 (1995); see, e.g., Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 672 , 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2087 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982); United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 580 , 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824); Wooten-Bey v. State, 308 Md. 534, 542-43 , 520 A.2d 1090, 1094 (1987).

See generally Shel ⁴³⁰ don R. Shapiro, Annotation, Double Jeopardy as Bar to Retrial After Grant of Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial, 98 A.L.R.3d 997 (1980). Wynn relies solely on the inherent authority of the court as authority to support the action of the trial court. While court rules or statutes permit federal courts and a number of state courts generally to dismiss criminal charges, Maryland has no rule or statute of comparable breadth. Under the federal rules, a court may dismiss charges for “unnecessary delay.” Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b) provides as follows: “By the Court.

The court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if unnecessary delay occurs in: (1) presenting a charge to a grand jury; (2) filing an information against a defendant; or (3) bringing a defendant to trial.” Several states have adopted language similar to Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(b), authorizing the trial court to dismiss a prosecution when there is “unnecessary delay.” See, e.g., Alaska R.Crim. P. 43(c) (2005); Idaho R.Crim. P. 48(a)(2) (2005); Minn. R.Crim.

P. 30.02 (1995, 2005 Cum.Supp.); Vt. R.Crim. P. 48(b) (2003). The parallel provision in Ohio is an even more general rule covering court dismissal over the objection of the State.

See Ohio Crim. R. Rule. 48(b) (2003). Other states have enacted statutes or rules authorizing courts sua sponte to dismiss criminal charges “in furtherance of justice.” See Cal.Penal Code § 1385 (2005); Idaho R.Crim. P. 48(a)(2); I.C.A. Rule 2.33 (Iowa 2002, 2005 Cum.Supp.); Minn.Stat. § 631.21 (2003, 2005 Cum.Supp.); Mont.Code Ann. § 46-13-401 (2003); N.Y.Crim.

Proc. § 210.40 (1996, 2005 Cum.Supp.); Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 815 (2003, 2005 Cum.Supp.); Or.Rev.Stat. § 135.755 (2003); Utah R.Crim. P. 25 (2005); Vt. R.Crim.

P. 48(b); Wash. R.Crim. P. 8.3(b) (2005). Instead of a general rule or statute, the Maryland Legislature and this Court have authorized trial courts to dismiss criminal charges in limited circumstances.

Most often invoked ⁴³¹ is the Hicks rule. Md.Code (2001, 2004 Cum.Supp.), § 6-103(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article and Md. Rule 4-271 mandate that the trial date in the circuit court may not be later than 180 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the arraignment of the defendant. See § 6-103(a)(2) (providing that “[t]he trial date may not be later than 180 days after the earlier of [the first appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the circuit court]”); Md. Rule 4-271(a)(l) (providing that “[t'jhe date for trial in the circuit court ... shall be not later than 180 days after the earlier of those events”). In State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310 , 403 A.2d 356 (1979), we recognized that § 6-103(a) and Rule 4-271 are mandatory, and we held that, absent a showing of good cause justifying a trial postponement, dismissal of the criminal charges is the appropriate sanction when the State fails to meet the then 120-day requirement.

Id. at 318, 403 A.2d at 360 ; see also Dorsey v. State, 349 Md. 688, 701 , 709 A.2d 1244, 1250 (1998) (discussing the Hicks rule). Wynn does not contend that the State violated Hicks or his constitutional right to a speedy trial. He also recognizes that there is no rule or statute authorizing a trial court to dismiss charges based on the State’s failure to comply with a scheduling order. Wynn’s sole contention is that the trial court has the power, as a “necessary corollary” to the court’s inherent authority to control its docket, to dismiss an indictment based on a scheduling order violation.

Since the early years of the Republic, Maryland courts have recognized the inherent authority of courts in numerous contexts. 2 In Attorney General v. Waldron, 289 Md. 683 , 426 ⁴³² A.2d 929 (1981), this Court described the source of inherent authority as follows: “We have recognized in the past that, in addition to the specific powers and functions expressly granted to the three organs of the government by the Constitution, each branch possesses additional powers perforce implied from the right and obligation to perform its constitutional duties. Indeed, the existence of such powers inheres in the scheme of a written constitution, for without this authority, the document would, by necessity, be but a tome exhaustively cataloging the sole authority of the respective political institutions. Particularly important for the resolution of this case, ⁴³³ of course, is what has come to be known as the incidental, implied or inherent power of one branch of government— the judiciary — and its relation to the police power vested, albeit inherently, in the legislative branch. Discussing the power that inheres in the judiciary in a democracy structured as ours, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, over fifty years ago, lucidly articulated the foundation of such authority: “ ‘In order to accomplish the purposes for which they are created, courts must also possess powers.

From time immemorial, certain powers have been conceded to courts, because they are courts. Such powers have been conceded, because without them they could neither maintain their dignity, transact their business, nor accomplish the purposes of their existence. * * * “The inherent power of the court is the power to protect itself; the power to administer justice ...; the power to promulgate rules for its practice; and the power to provide process where none exists. It is true that the judicial power of this court was created by the Constitution, but, upon coming into being under the Constitution, this court came into being with inherent powers.” (State v. Cannon, 196 Wis. 584 , 221 N.W. 603, 603-04 (1928) (quoting In re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472 , 172 P. 1152 (1918).)’ ” Id. at 690-91 , 426 A.2d 929, 933-34 (citations omitted); see also Commission on Medical Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390, 400 , 435 A.2d 747, 753 (1981) (articulating the rationale for inherent authority and quoting the same passage from Cannon). The concept of inherent authority, thus, is grounded in the understanding that courts must possess certain powers in order to function as courts.

Similarly, inherent authority is necessary to protect the role of the judiciary within the constitutional separation of powers. Inherent authority provides courts the means both to employ the power and fulfill the functions granted expressly to the judiciary by the Maryland Constitution as well as to resist encroachments by the legislative and executive branches. See Stillman, 291 Md. at ⁴³⁴ 400 , 435 A.2d at 753 (quoting Clerk of Court’s Comp. for Lyon County v. Lyon County Comm’rs, 308 Minn. 172 , 241 N.W.2d 781 , 786 (1976), as stating that inherent judicial power “grows out of express and implied constitutional provisions mandating a separation of powers and a viable judicial branch of government”); Felix F. Stumpf, Inherent Powers of the Courts: Sword and Shield of the Judiciary 6-9 (1994) (citing the separation of powers and the “nature of courts” or “structural necessity” as the two primary theoretical bases for inherent judicial powers). Other state courts have recognized inherent authority as a longstanding source of court power and have articulated similar rationales as has this Court.

See, e.g., State v. Superior Court, 78 Ariz. 74 , 275 P.2d 887, 889 (1954) (stating that “[tjhese powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and constitution of tribunals themselves”); Rose v. Palm Beach County, 361 So.2d 135, 137 (Fla.1978) (stating that the inherent authority “doctrine exists because it is crucial to the survival of the judiciary as an independent, functioning and co-equal branch of government”); Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council, 520 So.2d 393, 397 (La.1988) (describing the inherent powers doctrine as “a corollary of the concepts of separation of powers and of judicial independence”); Commonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. Tate, 442 Pa. 45 , 274 A.2d 193, 197 (1971) (justifying inherent powers as necessary for the judiciary to protect its position as a co-equal branch of government); State v. Braunsdorf 98 Wis.2d 569 , 297 N.W.2d 808, 813 (1980) (defining an inherent power as “one without which a court cannot properly function”). The United States Supreme Court has held that federal courts have inherent powers. In 1812, the Court stated that “[cjertain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution” and described these powers as “necessary to the exercise of all others.” United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch.) 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (holding that “jurisdiction of crimes against the state” is not an “implied” power); see Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 , 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132 , 115 L.Ed.2d 27 ⁴³⁵ (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 , 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2463 , 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 , 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89 , 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962).

Courts across the country, including this Court, have maintained that inherent authority should be recognized and yet employed rarely. By declaring a judicial power “inherent,” courts remove the power from control or limitation by the other branches of government. See, e.g., Criminal Inj. Comp.

Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 501 , 331 A.2d 55, 65 (1975) (reviewing the “long line of cases” in which this Court “has consistently held that the Legislature cannot divest the courts of the inherent power they possess to review and correct actions by an administrative agency which are arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable”). As such, courts have deemed the prospect of the expansive application of inherent authority as potentially undemocratic, invasive of the powers of the executive and legislative branches, and detrimental to inter-branch cooperation and harmony. See Roadway Express, 447 U.S. at 765 , 100 S.Ct. at 2463 (stating that'“[b]e-cause inherent powers are shielded from direct democratic controls, they must be exercised with restraint and discretion”); Stillman, 291 Md. at 400 , 435 A.2d at 753 (quoting Lyon County Comm’rs, 241 N.W.2d at 786, as stating that the determination of whether to apply inherent authority must give “due consideration for equally important executive and legislative functions”); Pena v. Dist. Court of Second Judicial Dist., 681 P.2d 953, 957 (Col.1984) (en banc) (stating that “the inherent power of courts is not unlimited” because “[t]he public interest requires that the three branches of government work cooperatively and in harmony”); Rose, 361 So.2d at 137 (noting that “it is the judiciary that must decide upon the ultimate delineation of power” and concluding that “[t]he courts’ zeal in the protection of their prerogatives must not lead them to invade areas of responsibility confided to the other two branches”).

Accordingly, courts have held that the test for inherent authority is whether it is “necessary to the performance of the judicial function as contemplated in our ⁴³⁶ state constitution.” Stillman, 291 Md. at 400 , 435 A.2d at 753 (quoting Lyon County Comm’rs, 241 N.W.2d at 786); see also Pena, 681 P.2d at 957 (stating that the “need which causes a court to invoke such powers must be reasonably necessary for its proper functioning”); Rose, 361 So.2d at 137 (holding that “[t]he doctrine of inherent power should be invoked only in situations of clear necessity”). These concerns are magnified and the need for a narrow application of inherent authority is greater when the power claimed as deriving from inherent authority overlaps