Hinton v. State
| Decision Date | 07 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 637-2020 |
| Parties | ERIC DEMOND HINTON v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 119168C
Berger, Arthur, Woodward, Patrick L., (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.
On June 15, 2012, Eric Demond Hinton, appellant, was convicted after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of eleven charges related to armed robbery, assault, and burglary. On September 13, 2012, the court sentenced appellant to a total of eighteen years of incarceration, with all but six years suspended, and a period of five years of supervised probation. On January 23, 2014, the court reconsidered its sentence and sentenced appellant to a total of seventeen years of incarceration, with all but five years suspended, and the same five years of supervised probation
Appellant was released from incarceration on February 18, 2015, and began his probation. On October 23, 2018, appellant was arrested in Prince George's County for illegal possession of a firearm and related charges. On November 1, 2019, appellant entered a nolo contendere plea before the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, and was given a three-year suspended sentence, with credit for time served, and two years of supervised probation. Thereafter, on February 27, 2020, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County found appellant in violation of probation and sentenced him to six years of incarceration, with credit of 492 days for time served.
In the instant appeal, appellant raises one question for our review, which we have rephrased: Did the trial court err by finding appellant in violation of probation based on the docket entries and transcript of a proceeding in another case where appellant entered a nolo contendere plea to a criminal offense that appellant committed while on probation?[1] As we shall explain, we affirm.
This appeal arises from an armed robbery perpetrated by appellant and three other individuals in Montgomery County on December 27, 2010. Appellant and his confederates knocked on the front door of a residence and, when the door was answered, entered the house with guns drawn. The robbers repeatedly asked the four occupants, "Where's the money?" They ultimately "corralled" the occupants into the basement and then searched throughout the home for valuables and cash. During the robbery, one of the victims managed to flee to a neighbor's home and call the police. When the police arrived, they found and arrested two of the perpetrators in and around the home, but two had fled the scene, including appellant. After receiving information from an informant, the police arrested appellant and the fourth perpetrator.
On September 29, 2011, appellant was charged with a total of twelve counts-three counts of first degree assault, three counts of armed robbery, one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, three counts of unlawful use of a handgun in the commission of a violent crime or felony, one count of first degree burglary, and one count of conspiracy to commit first degree burglary. On June 11, 2012, appellant appeared for a four-day jury trial before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The jury convicted appellant on eleven counts after the State dropped one count of armed robbery. On September 13, 2012, the court sentenced appellant to a total of eighteen years of incarceration, with all but six years suspended, and a period of five years of supervised probation. On January 23, 2014, the court reconsidered its sentence and sentenced appellant to a total of seventeen years of incarceration, with all but five years suspended, and the same five years of supervised probation. [2] Appellant served his time and was released on probation on February 18, 2015.
On October 23, 2018, which was during his five-year term of probation, appellant was arrested in Prince George's County for possession of a regulated firearm by a convicted felon, illegal possession of ammunition, possession of a handgun in a vehicle, and possession of marijuana in a quantity above ten grams. On November 1, 2019, appellant appeared before the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and advised the court of a plea agreement with the State in which he would plead nolo contendere to an amended charge of illegal possession of a regulated firearm under Maryland Code (2003, 2018 Repl. Vol.), Public Safety Article ("PS"), § 5-133(b) in exchange for a sentence of three years of incarceration, with all time of incarceration suspended except for time served, and two years of supervised probation. At the plea hearing, the State proffered the evidence that it would have presented if the case had gone to trial. Appellant's counsel advised the court: "We agree that [the State's factual proffer] would be the State's case."
On November 13, 2018, at the request of the Division of Parole and Probation, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County ordered that a bench warrant be issued against appellant for violating the conditions of his probation that required him to obey all laws and to receive permission before possessing a firearm. Appellant was arrested on the warrant on November 1, 2019.
On November 26, 2019, the circuit court held the first hearing on the violation of probation charges against appellant. Defense counsel, who had been retained the day before the hearing, told the court:
I'm not sure if we need a hearing, but [appellant]'s not going to admit the violation. The underlying conviction [in Prince George's County] that you're referring to was as the result of a nolo contendere plea and self-abdicate [sic], I don't know if the [c]ourt is familiar with the law, but it can't be used to violate him as an admission in this proceeding.
The prosecutor responded that defense counsel's statement was not her understanding of the case law, that defense counsel had just entered his appearance in the case, and that the argument regarding the nolo contendere plea was being raised for the first time. Defense counsel argued further that under Rule 4-242 and Agnew v. State, 51 Md.App. 614 (1982), the court could not use appellant's nolo contendere plea as evidence of "an admission" against him in a later proceeding. The court attempted to clarify the issue and asked: "But can it be used in a matter such as this . . . as a finding that would violate him?" Defense counsel responded that the (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel did acknowledge that
The trial court reset the hearing on the violation of probation to a later date in order to allow the State the opportunity to address appellant's legal argument. The prosecutor then advised the court that the basis of the violation of probation was a new handgun offense and that the underlying offense was an armed home invasion for which appellant was facing twelve years of back-up time. The court responded:
Prior to the second violation of probation hearing, the State filed a Memorandum of Law in which it argued that the violation of probation was not based on the nolo contendere plea, but on the facts the Prince George's County prosecutor proffered "that satisfied the elements of [the crime of illegal possession of a regulated firearm]." The State asserted that the proffered facts demonstrated "criminal conduct" and that such conduct violated the terms of appellant's probation requiring him to obey all laws and to obtain permission before possessing a dangerous weapon or firearm. Citing Horsey v. State, 56 Md.App. 667, 674 (1983), the State contended that the facts supported the violation, even if the plea itself could not. Defense counsel did not submit any memorandum.
At the hearing, which was held on January 22, 2020, the prosecutor initially submitted on her written memorandum of law. Defense counsel, on the other hand, argued appellant's position. Defense counsel again contended that the issue presented was According to defense counsel, Rule 4-242(e) and Agnew forbid the use of a nolo plea as evidence of guilt in a collateral proceeding. Defense counsel claimed that the State was "simply introducing the fact of a nolo plea, trying to say that that's an admission of conduct, or that's an admission of guilt." Defense counsel concluded that "the State [could] not violate [appellant] based solely on a nolo plea," and that the court should "not accept simply a nolo plea as a basis for violation at a hearing in this matter."
The prosecutor responded first that the standard of proof that applies to violations of probation is different from the standard of proof that applies to criminal convictions "[A]s far as burden of proof, Your Honor, the facts presented to, or coming to the knowledge of the judge as to the breach of the conditions of probation, need not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial