In re Stemple

• Docket Number: 471-2021
• Decision Date: 27 January 2022
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL STEMPLE
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

1

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL STEMPLE

No. 471-2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

January 27, 2022

Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No C-10-CV-19-000628

Kehoe Zic, Moylan, Charles, E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, filed, pursuant to Maryland Rules 7-401, et. seq., in the Circuit Court for Frederick County wherein Michael Stemple, appellant challenged the decision of the Maryland Parole Commission to deny him the opportunity to be released on parole.^[1]

BACKGROUND

In 2011, appellant pleaded guilty, in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor. Thereafter the court sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment for one count, and to a fully suspended consecutive term of twenty-five years' imprisonment for the other count in favor of five years' supervised probation upon release. A few months later, on October 27, 2011, appellant was convicted of juror intimidation and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment to be served concurrently.^[2]

In April 2016, after serving one quarter of his sentence, appellant became eligible for release on parole. Md. Code Ann. Corr. Servs. § 7-301(a)(2). On April 29, 2016, in apparent anticipation of his upcoming parole hearing, appellant sent a letter to Parole Commission listing some of his accomplishments while incarcerated in the Division of Correction. On April 27, 2016, a hearing was held before a parole hearing officer, who, a few days later, on April 29, 2016 recommended that appellant be reconsidered for release on parole in May 2018. On May 4, 2016, a parole commissioner disapproved the hearing officer's recommendation and also made the decision to refuse appellant the opportunity for release on parole altogether. The commissioner based its decision on the nature of appellant's offenses and his criminal history.

Where, as here, a parole commissioner disapproves of a hearing officer's recommendation, the matter is, by operation of law, automatically referred to a two-commissioner appellate panel for the issuance of a final parole decision. Corr. Servs. § 7-306(e)(2) & COMAR 12.08.01.19.A(4). On May 10, 2016, the two-commissioner panel agreed to refuse appellant the opportunity for release on parole noting that:

The subject has a moderate criminal record, but it is worth noting, convictions for animal cruelty and intimidating a juror. That history taken together with this sexual offense which was perpetrated for years, a refusal is warranted.

About a year and half later, on September 10, 2018, the circuit court issued an amended commitment record to indicate that appellant's juror intimidation conviction was actually classified as a misdemeanor, and not a felony. Thereafter, in light of that change in circumstance, appellant wrote a letter to the Parole Commission seeking reconsideration of its earlier decision to refuse him the opportunity to be released on parole. That letter also made a vague reference to "the P.A. charge" which allegedly "shows no case # as it was to be expunged. But yet never happened." This was an apparent reference to appellant's animal cruelty, or conspiracy to commit animal cruelty, conviction. Because the Commission had relied, in part, on appellant's juror intimidation conviction in refusing him parole, the Commission decided to grant his request and scheduled him for a new parole release determination hearing.

About six weeks later, on October 26, 2018, appellant had another parole release determination hearing, at the conclusion of which the hearing officer recommended no change in the earlier decision to refuse appellant the opportunity for release on parole. Later, a parole commissioner adopted the hearing officer's recommendation to refuse parole.

Appellant thereafter sought "appellate" review of that decision by a panel of two different parole commissioners pursuant to Section 7-306(d)(3) of the Correctional Services Article and COMAR 12.08.01.19.A(1). Nearly nine months later, on June 24, 2019, the panel of two commissioners adopted the recommendation to refuse appellant the opportunity for release on parole noting:

Panel agrees to refuse parole based on complete review of the offender's file and statement of charges. Panel does take notice of the offender's accomplishment and completed programs which will be beneficial upon being released from custody.

On May 11, 2020, appellant requested reconsideration of the denial of parole pursuant to COMAR 12.08.01.23, and, on November 9, 2020, the Commission declined to change its decision.

On August 19, 2019, appellant filed, in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, a petition for judicial review. The court permitted the parties to file various papers related to appellant's petition. In the Parole Commission's response to appellant's petition, it summarized appellant's pro se arguments as follows:

• he pled guilty to one count of sexually abusing his stepdaughter, but he entered an Alford plea as to another count, thereby not admitting to the crime; • he did not begin sexually abusing his stepdaughter when she was ten years old;

• the sexual abuse of a minor is not a violent crime;

• jury tampering is a misdemeanor, not a felony;

• although he was convicted of a crime involving animal cruelty, he has never harmed an animal or, in this case, a bird;

• he has had various roadblocks -- for example, unhelpful case managers -- in his efforts to obtain prison jobs and to participate in programming in the Division of Correction ("DOC");

• he obtained his GED while in the DOC;

• he has a good institutional disciplinary record; and

• he has been assaulted four times while in prison, resulting in his periodic placement on protective custody where he cannot participate in institutional programming or earn sentence credits.

Ultimately, the court treated appellant's papers as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and, after holding a hearing on the matter on May 17, 2021, it denied relief. Appellant noted an appeal from that denial. For the following reasons, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

DISCUSSION

With respect to a petition for a writ of mandamus, Maryland Rule 7-403 provides that:

The court may issue an order denying the writ of mandamus, or may issue the writ (1) remanding the case for further proceedings, or (2) reversing or modifying the decision if any substantial right of the plaintiff may have been prejudiced because a finding, conclusion, or decision of the agency:

(A) is unconstitutional,

(B) exceeds the

...