Griffin v. Lindsey

• Decision Date: 04 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 88,88
• Parties: SHYQUILLE GRIFFIN v. ANDREW LINDSEY, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

SHYQUILLE GRIFFIN v. ANDREW LINDSEY, et al.

No. 88

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Argued: June 4, 2015

September Term, 2014

August 4, 2015

MARYLAND CODE (2001, 2008 REPL. VOL., 2011 SUPP.), § 11103(b) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE ("CP") — VICTIM'S RIGHT TO APPEAL — STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: CP § 11-103(b), which permitted a crime victim to file an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory or final order that denied or failed to consider a right secured to the victim by explicitly enumerated statutes, did not permit a crime victim to file an application for leave to appeal the denial of a motion for reconsideration filed under CP § 11-103(e).

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No.: CT110980B

Barbera, C.J. ^*Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins McDonald Watts, JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J.

Greene and McDonald, JJ., dissent.

^* Harrell, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

In Maryland, a victim is not a party to a criminal prosecution. Hoile v. State, 404 Md. 591, 606, 948 A.2d 30, 39 (2008). Nevertheless, crime victims are vested with a number of "specific, but narrow" constitutional and statutory rights in criminal proceedings. Id. at 605, 948 A.2d at 39. For example, Maryland Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol., 2014 Supp.), § 11-603 of the Criminal Procedure Article permits a court to enter a judgment of restitution ordering a defendant to compensate a victim for monetary loss. When a victim alleges that a court failed to consider or improperly denied a restitution request, § 11-103(e) of the Criminal Procedure Article permits the victim to file a motion for reconsideration: "A victim who alleges that the victim's right to restitution under § 11-603 of this title was not considered or was improperly denied may file a motion requesting relief within 30 days of the denial or alleged failure to consider." And § 11-103(b) of the Criminal Procedure Article permits the victim to file an application for leave to appeal:

Although not a party to a criminal or juvenile proceeding, a victim of a crime for which the defendant or child respondent is charged may file an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Special Appeals from an interlocutory order or appeal to the Court of Special Appeals from a final order that denies or fails to consider a right secured to the victim by . . . § 11-603 of this title[.]

Pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-204(b), an application for to leave to appeal "shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is sought." In this case, we consider whether the Court of Special Appeals had jurisdiction to consider an appeal challenging a denial of restitution when the application for leave to appeal was filed more than 30 days after a final sentencing judgment, but less than 30 days after the denial of a motion for reconsideration challenging the sentencing judgment.

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In May 2011, Petitioner, Shyquille Griffin, and Antonio Whitely arranged to purchase marijuana from Respondent, Andrew Lindsey. When the three met to consummate the transaction, Whitely was dissatisfied with the quantity of marijuana that Lindsey provided. Consequently, Griffin approached Lindsey, who was seated in his vehicle, and asked him "for what else he had in the car." Whitely then approached with a handgun brandished and pointed the weapon at Lindsey, demanding "everything that he had in the vehicle." As Lindsey drove off, Whitely shot him in the arm.

Griffin and Whitely were indicted in June 2011 on charges related to the shooting.¹ On November 30, 2011, Griffin entered a plea agreement (the "Agreement") with the State. The Agreement provided that if Griffin provided truthful testimony in the State's case against Whitely, the State would agree to a guilty plea for Count 4 of the indictment—Attempted Robbery—and a sentencing cap of 15 years, suspending all but 18 months. The Agreement did not mention restitution, and it contained a provision stating that it represented "the full and complete agreement of the parties."

At a plea hearing conducted on December 16, 2011, the parties presented the Agreement to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The hearing judge acceptedthe terms of the Agreement, concluding that there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea to Count 4. The hearing judge then postponed sentencing until January 2012.

After satisfying the terms of the Agreement,² Griffin returned to court on January 13, 2012 for sentencing under the plea agreement. Acknowledging that "there [was] nothing in the plea agreement about restitution," the State nevertheless advised the court that Lindsey was seeking $9,700 in restitution. Relying on Lafontant v. State, 197 Md. App. 217, 13 A.3d 56 (2011), the State argued that a victim has an absolute right to request restitution regardless of whether it appeared in a plea agreement. The hearing court disagreed, concluding that it could not order restitution because it would violate the Agreement by adding to the penalty. Consistent with the Agreement, the Circuit Court sentenced Griffin to 15 years of incarceration, suspending all but 18 months, and three years of supervised probation. It did not order restitution.

Invoking § 11-103(e) of the Criminal Procedure Article and arguing that the hearing court improperly denied his request for restitution, Lindsey filed a timely "Motion for Reconsideration of Restitution and Request for Hearing" ("CP § 11-103(e) Motion") on February 13, 2012. The Circuit Court denied the CP § 11-103(e) Motion on March 7, 2012, reiterating that ordering restitution would violate the Agreement, which did not include restitution, and reasoning, for the first time, that ordering restitution would violate "the Constitution."

Lindsey filed an "Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Special Appeals" ("Application") on April 5, 2012, which was granted. The intermediate appellate court reversed the Circuit Court, holding that although the Application was untimely with respect to the Circuit Court's January 13, 2012 sentencing judgment, the Application was timely with respect to the Circuit Court's March 7, 2012 order denying Lindsey's CP § 11-103(e) Motion.³ The Court of Special Appeals further held that the Circuit Court abused its discretion when it denied the CP § 11-103(e) Motion because it had discretion to order restitution as a condition of Griffin's probation without violating the Agreement, Maryland Rule 4-345,⁴ or Griffin's double jeopardy rights.⁵ Griffin filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which we granted to consider the following questions:

1. Do crime victims lack statutory authority to appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Code (2008, 2011 Supp.), Criminal Procedure Article § 11-103(e), thus depriving the Court of Special Appeals of jurisdiction to review the [C]ircuit [C]ourt's denial of Mr. Lindsey's motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution?

2. Did the circuit court properly deny Mr. Lindsey's motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution from Mr. Griffin, when the court had already accepted Mr. Griffin's guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement that prohibited restitution, Mr. Griffin had already performed his part of the plea agreement, and the [C]ircuit [C]ourt had already sentenced Mr. Griffin?⁶

Because we answer no to the first question, we need not address the second and shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Circuit Court ruled that Lindsey was not entitled to restitution as a matter of law. We review questions of law without deference. See Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392, 788 A.2d 609, 612 (2002) ("[W]here the order involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the lower court's conclusions are 'legally correct' under a de novo standard of review.").

DISCUSSION

The Circuit Court denied Lindsey's restitution request on two separate occasions: first on January 13, 2012 when it sentenced Griffin without ordering restitution and then again on March 7, 2012 when it denied Lindsey's CP § 11-103(e) Motion. Pursuant to Maryland Rules 8-202(a) and 8-204(b), notices of appeal and applications for leave to appeal, respectively, "shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or orderfrom which the appeal" is taken or sought. The 30-day requirement for notices of appeal "is jurisdictional; if [it] is not met, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed." Houghton v. Cnty. Comm'rs of Kent Cnty., 305 Md. 407, 413, 504 A.2d 1145, 1148 (1986), superseded by Rule on other grounds as stated in Hiob v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 440 Md. 466, 103 A.3d 596 (2014). "When an application for leave to appeal is granted, and it is determined that the application was not filed timely, this same principle applies, and the appeal must be dismissed." Keys v. State, 195 Md. App. 19, 27, 5 A.3d 1113, 1118 (2010).

Lindsey filed his Application on April 5, 2012—more than 30 days after the sentencing judgment, but less than 30 days after the Order denying the CP § 11-103(e) Motion. Although Lindsey satisfied Rule 8-204(b)'s 30-day deadline with respect to his CP § 11-103(e) Motion, we must address whether, when Lindsey filed his Application, victims had a right to file an application for leave to appeal the denial of CP § 11-103(e) motions. If victims did not have this right, Lindsey's Application was untimely and, therefore, the Court of Special Appeals did not have jurisdiction to consider his appeal.

Any right of a victim to file an application for leave to appeal, "must originate from the General Assembly, not from this Court." Lopez-Sanchez v. State, 388 Md....