Conner v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 26, Sept. Term, 2020,26, Sept. Term, 2020 |
| Citation | 472 Md. 722,248 A.3d 318 |
| Parties | Effrem Antoine CONNER v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Samuel Feder, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Brian Scott Kleinbord, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Amicus Curiae University of Maryland Law School Criminal Defense Clinic: Maneka Sinha, Esq., Criminal Defense Clinic, University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law, 500 W. Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, Rose Cowan,* Kathryn Meader,* Avery Potts,* Student Attorneys, Criminal Defense Clinic, University of Maryland, Francis King Carey School of Law, 500 W. Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.
Argued before: McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Harrell, Glenn T. Biran, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
For the second time in three years, we confront a due process challenge arising from participation in the Montgomery County Adult Drug Court ("Drug Court"), a variety of problem-solving courts governed by Maryland Rule 16-207. Three years ago, in State v. Brookman , 460 Md. 291, 322, 190 A.3d 282 (2018), this Court held that a drug court must afford a participant "certain minimum due process protections" before imposing a sanction involving the loss of liberty or termination from the program. In the present case, we are asked to determine whether a former drug court participant is denied his right to an impartial tribunal if a judge assigned to the drug court (and who, in that capacity, presided over certain events involving the participant) also presides over a revocation of probation proceeding arising from the participant's alleged violations of drug court protocols, as well as the related conditions of his probation.
In September 2016, Petitioner Effrem Connor1 pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in five cases involving theft charges and violations of probation. The court sentenced him cumulatively to 15 years, all suspended in favor of five years’ probation and, as a condition of probation, ordered Connor to enroll in, comply with the conditions of, and complete successfully the Drug Court program.
In 2018, the State alleged that Connor violated his probation in those cases by failing to abstain from drugs and alcohol and failing to comply with the requirements of Drug Court. Connor moved to recuse any "Drug Court Judge[ ]" from presiding over his violation of probation hearing. The Honorable John Maloney, a sometimes Drug Court team member, denied the motion to recuse, presided over the revocation hearing, and found Connor in violation of his probation. The court sentenced him to serve 10 years.
Connor filed an application for leave to appeal in the Court of Special Appeals, which was granted. A divided panel of that Court affirmed the circuit court judgment in an unreported opinion.2 We granted Connor's petition for a writ of certiorari and shall affirm likewise the judgment.
Beginning in the 1990s, Maryland courts began operating a variety of problem-solving courts, of which a drug court is one. Brookman , 460 Md. at 297, 190 A.3d 282 ; see also William McColl, Comment, Baltimore City's Drug Treatment Court: Theory and Practice in an Emerging Field , 55 Md. L. Rev. 467 (1996) (). These courts are, in essence, "treatment programs operated under the auspices of the judiciary[,]" Brookman , 460 Md. at 294, 190 A.3d 282, employing "a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach" to address matters otherwise "under a court's jurisdiction[.]" Md. Rule 16-207(a)(1).
In a drug court program, the court collaborates with other governmental entities, community organizations, and the parties to work to achieve the common goal of "[r]estor[ing] defendant as a productive, non-criminal member of society[.]" Administrative Office of the Courts, Problem-Solving Courts, Drug Treatment Courts , https://mdcourts.gov/opsc/dtc, last visited 11 Mar. 2021 [archived at https://perma.cc/FFN2-GS3C]. "A typical drug court program is divided into several phases of diminishing intensity as the participant progresses in accordance with the program's goals." Brookman , 460 Md. at 296, 190 A.3d 282 (footnote omitted). Regular status hearings presided over by judges assigned to the program encourage compliance with treatment and the protocols. Id. at 296-97, 190 A.3d 282. Graduated sanctions, "some of which derive from the court's coercive powers[,]" may be imposed for violations of the program rules. Id . at 297, 190 A.3d 282.
The Circuit Court for Montgomery County established its Drug Court in 2004. Id . at 300, 190 A.3d 282. Its stated mission "is to reduce recidivism by providing intensive services and supervision to address substance dependence and criminal thinking." Montgomery County Circuit Court, Adult Drug Court , available at https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/cct/drug-court.html, last visited 11 Mar. 2021 [archived at https://perma.cc/5U29-Z7ZV]. To achieve that goal, the Drug Court "provides an alternative to traditional case processing and disposition that emphasizes the value of[ ] [c]ollaborative treatment planning, case management, and judicial decision-making[.]" Id . The program is intended to last a minimum of 20 months. Id .
As detailed in Brookman , in the ordinary course, a defendant enters the Drug Court as a condition of probation after a guilty plea or being charged with violating probation.3
Id . at 300, 190 A.3d 282. If the defendant graduates from Drug Court, his or her probation is terminated. Id . A team collaborates to help the defendant reach that goal, comprising "the judge (referred to as the team leader), the program coordinator, the prosecutor, defense counsel, case managers, and treatment providers." Id . at 301, 190 A.3d 282. If a defendant violates the terms and conditions of the program, including by missing scheduled appointments or by a positive urinalysis test result, he or she is subject to receiving a range of sanctions up to and including incarceration and, ultimately, termination from the program. Id . at 301-02, 190 A.3d 282. Non-compliance with the program rules also may result in violation of probation proceedings.
On 22 September 2016, after pleading guilty in five cases and receiving a suspended sentence conditioned upon his entry into, compliance with, and completion of Drug Court, Connor signed and executed a Drug Court enrollment agreement.4 Among the fourteen numbered paragraphs of the agreement were included provisions whereby he agreed to "comply with the expectations and requirements of Drug Court"; to "attend and participate in substance abuse treatment" as directed by the circuit court; and to abstain from drugs and alcohol. Connor acknowledged that he understood that he could be directed to submit to drug and alcohol testing at any time; that his failure to do so would result in a sanction; that "using or possessing any [drugs or alcohol] will result in a violation of the terms of [his] probation"; and that "any attempt to falsify a drug and alcohol test, including dilution," would be grounds for termination from Drug Court. He averred that he understood that failure to complete Drug Court would result in his being terminated from the program and "sentence[d] ... in accordance with the law."
At the same time, Connor executed a "Consent for Disclosure of Confidential Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment and Related Medical Information" form, in which he consented to "ongoing verbal and written communication about [his] compliance status" with alcohol and substance abuse treatment to the circuit court, including judges; defense counsel; the State; and other persons involved with the Drug Court program. He consented explicitly to those communications for the purposes of "reporting on and monitoring [his] treatment, attendance, prognosis, and compliance with the terms and conditions of [his] probation" and for the purpose of "discussing, commenting, and assessing [his] status and progress as a participant in the Drug Court Program in accordance with the Drug Court's reporting and monitoring criteria[.]"
Connor began his participation in Drug Court on 13 October 2016. Over the course of 19 months, he appeared for 56 status hearings in the circuit court.5 Judges presiding over his hearings imposed graduated sanctions, including incarceration, for Connor's noncompliance with the program's terms. In the first six months, he received a written warning for failing to appear for a substance abuse treatment meeting. In April 2017, he admitted to using alcohol twice, tested positive for metabolites of alcohol and cocaine, and recorded low creatinine levels6 on multiple occasions. In October 2017, Connor again was sanctioned for low creatinine levels, which were treated as his third positive urinalysis for purposes of the program. In January 2018, Connor tested positive for cocaine and was sanctioned.
The events giving rise to the revocation of probation proceedings under scrutiny here occurred on 23 July 2018. On that date, Maynor Corea, a lab technician at the urinalysis collection facility, observed Connor using a suspected external device to provide a false sample of urine. Mr. Corea reported this to his supervisor, Larry Stewart, the therapist who oversees the therapy arm of Drug Court. Consequently, Connor was directed to appear for a Drug Court hearing the next day before Judge Maloney, who revoked his bond pending the filing of a violation of probation petition.
Thereafter, the State charged that Connor violated standard condition 8 and special condition 16, both of which required him to abstain from drugs and alcohol, and special condition 36, requiring him to comply with the requirements of Drug Court, based upon the alleged false urine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re K.H.
...‘himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned[.]’ " Conner v. State , 472 Md. 722, 737, 248 A.3d 318 (2021) (quoting Maryland Rule 18-102.11(a)(1)). "[T]here is a strong presumption ... that judges are impartial participants in the le......
-
Worsham v. Eaves
...in acase, the proper avenue of relief for that party is to raise that issue on appeal from a final judgment. See, e.g., Conner v. State, 472 Md. 722, 745, 750 (2021) (addressing failure to recuse on appeal); Boyd v. State, 321 Md. 69, 85-86 (1990) (same). To permit litigants to collaterally......
-
Thompson v. Robinson
... ... educated, he seems to be in good medical condition, and while ... there is some question as to his ... mental state, the evidence was insufficient for this Court to ... determine why that was so ... The ... court noted that ... the four corners of the courtroom," which is not grounds ... for recusal. Conner v. State , 472 Md. 722, 744 ... (2021) (cleaned up) ... Issue 2 doesn't state a discrete request for ... relief. To the extent ... ...
-
M.Y. v. L.G.
... ... The trial court found that there was a material ... change in circumstances because Mother was intending to move ... out of the state and take S. with her. The trial court also ... found that the parents' ability to communicate and reach ... shared decisions was ... strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not ... qualified." Conner v. State , 472 Md. 722, 738 ... (2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) ... Accordingly, "[t]he decision to recuse ... ...