Antoine v. State
Decision Date | 14 April 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 2880, Sept. Term, 2018,2880, Sept. Term, 2018 |
Citation | 226 A.3d 1170,245 Md.App. 521 |
Parties | Gary ANTOINE v. STATE of Maryland, et al. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Victor D. Stone, Upper Marlboro, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Sarah P. Pritzlaff (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for the State of Maryland.
J. Wyndal Gordon, Baltimore, MD, for Dorian Bostic.
Panel: Fader, C.J., Beachley, James A. Kenney, III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Over the past several decades, the General Assembly has tried repeatedly to provide meaningful rights to crime victims that can be enforced without violating the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. Over that same period, the Court of Appeals similarly "has continuously balanced the legislature's public policy mandate of affording victims broad rights against the need for appropriate limitations." Lopez v. State , 458 Md. 164, 179, 181 A.3d 810 (2018). Here, we are called upon to determine whether the rights of a crime victim were violated in the course of criminal proceedings that resulted in a guilty plea agreement and, if so, whether a remedy exists that can be enforced without violating the constitutional rights of the criminal defendant.
Gary Antoine, the appellant, was assaulted by Dorian Bostic, the appellee. During a hearing that a prosecutor advised Mr. Antoine not to attend, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City became involved in negotiating a plea agreement with Mr. Bostic and, without first hearing from Mr. Antoine, bound itself to a disposition of probation before judgment. When Mr. Antoine subsequently asked the court to reconsider its decision and hear from him before reaching a final determination regarding Mr. Bostic's sentence, the court responded that it lacked authority to reopen Mr. Bostic's disposition.
Mr. Antoine now argues that the circuit court's actions denied him his constitutional and statutory right to present victim impact evidence before sentencing. We agree. When a victim has invoked sufficiently his or her right to present victim impact evidence before sentencing, a court errs as a matter of law if it approves a plea agreement that binds the court to a particular sentence without first giving the victim a reasonable opportunity to present appropriate victim impact evidence. We also hold that when such an error occurs, § 11-103(e)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Article (Repl. 2018; Supp. 2019) authorizes a remedy that is both effective and respectful of the constitutional rights of defendants. That remedy is to vacate the sentence and the trial court's final approval of the plea agreement, and require the court to receive and consider victim impact evidence before deciding whether to give final approval of the plea agreement. We will apply that remedy here.
Protections for the rights of crime victims in Maryland are contained in both Article 47 of the Declaration of Rights, and in Title 11 of the Criminal Procedure Article.1 Of particular relevance here, § 11-402 establishes a crime victim's right to present, and the sentencing court's obligation to consider, a victim impact statement; and § 11-403 establishes the victim's right to address the court before the court imposes a sentence or other disposition.
As set forth in § 11-402(e), a "victim impact statement" must identify the victim; itemize the victim's economic loss; identify and describe the seriousness of any physical injuries; "describe any change in the victim's personal welfare or familial relationships"; "identify any request for psychological services"; identify any request to prohibit contact with the victim; and "contain any other information related to the impact on the victim or the victim's family that the court requires." Section 11-402(b) provides that "[i]f the court does not order a presentence investigation or predisposition investigation, the prosecuting attorney or the victim may prepare a victim impact statement to be submitted to the court and the defendant ... in accordance with the Maryland Rules." Section 11-402(d) requires the court to "consider the victim impact statement in determining the appropriate sentence or disposition and in entering a judgment of restitution for the victim ...."
Section 11-403(b) provides that "the court, if practicable, shall allow the victim or the victim's representative to address the court under oath before the imposition of sentence or other disposition." A victim who chooses to address the court is subject to cross-examination "limited to the factual statements made [by the victim] to the court," id. § 11-403(c), but a victim also has a right not to address the court, id. § 11-403(d).2
The rights of victims are further specified in § 11-103(b) and (e). Section 11-103(b) provides appellate rights to crime victims. That section provides, in pertinent part:
Although not a party to a criminal or juvenile proceeding, a victim of a crime for which the defendant ... is charged may file an ... appeal to the Court of Special Appeals from a final order that denies or fails to consider a right secured to the victim by subsection (e)(4) of this section, ... § 11-402, [or] § 11-403, ... of this title ....[3 ]
Section 11-103(e) makes courts responsible for ensuring that victims' rights are honored, and authorizes them to fashion appropriate remedies if not:
Section 11-103(e)(1) thus requires a court to ensure that a victim's statutory rights are protected; § 11-103(e)(2) authorizes a court to provide a remedy if it finds that those rights have not been protected; and § 11-103(e)(3) expressly contemplates that such a remedy might include the modification or alteration of a sentence.
With this statutory background in mind, we turn to the case before us.
The State presented the following recitation to provide the factual basis in support of Mr. Bostic's guilty plea:
Mr. Bostic accepted the State's factual recitation, with the exception of "the swinging of the bat and the attempt to run over in the vehicle."
On October 15, 2018, Mr. Bostic appeared in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for his scheduled trial date. Because the prosecutor assigned to the case was on paternity leave, a stand-in prosecutor represented the State. Mr. Antoine was not present, but was instead "on call," because the assigned prosecutor—anticipating that the trial would be postponed in his absence—had told Mr. Antoine that "nothing substantive would occur" and "not to appear" in court.
When Mr. Bostic's case was called, the circuit court asked whether there was "any possibility of a plea." The stand-in prosecutor informed the court that the State had offered "18 in 18"—i.e., a suspended sentence of 18 months followed by 18 months of supervised probation—and that the State was willing to reduce the period of supervised probation to 12 months. After further discussions away from the bench, the parties returned for another conference, at which time defense counsel conveyed that the parties were "very close," but needed the court's "wisdom to assist us with this case if you can offer it." The court initially responded that it would "not go[ ] under [the State's] offer," and, when informed that there was "potentially significant restitution," expressed an unwillingness to resolve the case without "an agreement as to restitution," when the victim had "ask[ed] for it."
In response, Mr. Bostic's counsel complained that Mr. Antoine "was supposed to be here today like everybody else." After the stand-in prosecutor informed the court of Mr. Antoine's "on call" status based on the assigned pros...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. State
...counsel for Mr. Lee stated that he had not been able to ascertain whether such a form had been filed, this Court made clear in Antoine, 245 Md.App. at 545-46, that a failure to file the statutory notification form was "no barrier" to asserting a violation of a victim's rights if the parties......
-
Brown v. State
...Bar Association relating to guilty pleas in criminal cases. See Sharp , 446 Md. at 697-99, 133 A.3d 1089 ; Antoine v. State , 245 Md. App. 521, 551 n.9, 226 A.3d 1170 (2020).6 See CR § 5-101(g)(1). Recent amendments that altered some of these schedules were enacted after the offenses were c......
-
Brown v. State
...a publication of the American Bar Association relating to guilty pleas in criminal cases. See Sharp, 446 Md. at 697-99; Antoine v. State, 245 Md. App. 521, 551 n.9 (2020). 6. See CR §5-101(g)(1). Recent amendments that altered some of these schedules were enacted after the offenses were com......
-
Syed v. Young Lee
...Appellate Court's decision in Antoine v. State, 245 Md.App. 521 (2020), is instructive. In that case, Antoine was the victim of an assault. Id. at 530. During hearing where Antoine was not present (because the prosecutor had told Antoine nothing substantive would occur), the circuit court b......
-
Threshold Double Jeopardy Issues
...not bar the vacating of a sentence or a trial court's agreement to impose a specific sentence under a plea agreement. Antoine v. State, 245 Md. App. 521, 560-61 (2020). 4. Maryland common law The prohibition against double jeopardy is part of Maryland's common law. Purnell, 375 Md. at 691. ......
-
Maryland Crime Victims' Right To Be Notified Of, To Attend, and To Speak During Criminal Proceedings
...order; or (2) an appeal from a final order, both filed in the Court of Special Appeals. Id. § 11-103. See also Antoine v. State, 245 Md. App. 521, 542 (2020) (victim had standing to challenge the circuit court's alleged violations of his rights, and to seek an appropriate remedy). A victim ......
-
Appeal
...of the victim's right within 30 days of the alleged violation."6 2013 Md. Laws, ch. 363, § 1, codified at Crim. Proc. § 11-103(e)(3). 245 Md. App. 521, 541-42 (2020). Thus, victims who are denied their rights have standing to take a direct appeal....