Mainor v. State, 55, Sept. Term, 2020

• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: Getty, J.
• Citation: 257 A.3d 648,475 Md. 487
• Parties: Darrell Leonard MAINOR v. STATE of Maryland
• Docket Number: No. 55, Sept. Term, 2020,55, Sept. Term, 2020
• Decision Date: 11 August 2021

475 Md. 487
257 A.3d 648

Darrell Leonard MAINOR
v.
STATE of Maryland

No. 55, Sept. Term, 2020

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

August 11, 2021

Argued by Amy E. Brennan, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by Andrew H. Costinett, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J.; McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth and Biran, JJ.

Getty, J.

475 Md. 493

This case calls on us to consider a trial judge's exercise of discretion in declining to postpone a defendant's sentencing. Following a two-day trial, Darrell Leonard Mainor was convicted of home invasion, burglary, assault, and reckless endangerment. Directly following the jury verdict, the trial court indicated its intention to move to sentencing. Mr. Mainor requested a postponement in order to prepare mitigating information for the court's consideration in fashioning his sentence. Specifically, Mr. Mainor requested that the court order a long-form presentence investigation report ("PSI")¹ and indicated that additional

257 A.3d 652

time would allow his mother to secure leave from work to testify on his behalf.

475 Md. 494

In response, the trial court denied Mr. Mainor's request for a long-form PSI and decided to move forward with sentencing despite his mother's absence. For reasons fully explained below, we find that the trial judge's use of discretion in reaching these outcomes was "manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons." In re Don Mc. , 344 Md. 194, 201, 686 A.2d 269 (1996) (quoting State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker , 79 Wash.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971) ). Additionally, the trial judge's remarks in the sentencing process demonstrated an unreasonable consideration of the jury's entitlement to observe sentencing and a perceivable partiality or bias against the defendant and his mother.

Therefore considering cumulatively the remarks and actions of the trial judge, we conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying Mr. Mainor's request to postpone sentencing and, consequently, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand the case to that court with instructions to vacate the sentence of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County and to remand the case to that court for re-sentencing before a different judge.

BACKGROUND

A. Home Invasion, Burglary, and Assault.

On July 23, 2018, a violent home invasion took place at 501 Christopher Street in Salisbury, Maryland at the home of an elderly ninety-year-old, Francis Joan McCrorey. Shirley Donohoe, an eighty-one-year-old woman and close friend of Ms. McCrorey, was assisting Ms. McCrorey in her home that day. After fixing lunch for Ms. McCrorey, Ms. Donohoe escorted Ms. McCrorey to the bathroom. As the two women exited the bathroom, they were confronted by an unfamiliar man in the house demanding to know where the money was kept. After Ms. Donohoe responded by explaining that she did not know where the money was, the assailant struck Ms. Donohoe in the face repeatedly, breaking her upper dental plate and nose as well as knocking her unconscious.

475 Md. 495

When Ms. Donohoe regained consciousness, she observed the assailant leave the home through the back door. Ms. McCrorey was sitting on the floor next to the bathroom, bleeding from her cheek.² Ms. Donohoe called 911 for assistance. Officer Noah King of the Salisbury Police Department responded to the call and found both women injured and frightened. Although in a frantic state, Ms. Donohoe was able to provide the responding officer with a brief description of the assailant, indicating he was a young African-American male wearing a gray sweatshirt with the hood pulled up. Both women were taken by ambulance to the hospital for medical treatment. Later at the hospital, Ms. Donohoe provided further details about her assailant's description, estimating that he was between twenty and twenty-five years old, about five feet, ten inches tall, and between one-hundred and eighty and two hundred pounds with a stocky build.

Back at the scene of the incident, investigating officers discovered that two upstairs bedrooms had been ransacked and a fireproof safe had been emptied. Additionally,

257 A.3d 653

the officers located an open second-floor window situated above a first-story roof. A large oil tank sat below the first-story roof. The officers determined that the assailant likely climbed the oil tank, accessed the first-story roof, and then climbed through the second-floor window to enter the home. Swabs from the oil tank and from the windowsill provided sufficient DNA for an expert in forensic DNA analysis to make a match to Darrell Leonard Mainor's DNA profile.

Following the DNA match, Ms. Donohoe was shown a photo array on September 21, 2018. She did not positively identify Mr. Mainor but did note that his photo was the "closest" to the man that assaulted her. Mr. Mainor was interviewed by the police on November 6, 2018 and initially denied any involvement in the incident, asserting that he had never been

475 Md. 496

to Ms. McCrorey's home. He later stated that he might be willing to provide information regarding the incident in exchange for a deal. On the same day, Mr. Mainor was arrested and charged with twelve criminal counts in connection with the home invasion, burglary, and assault, of Ms. Donohoe and Ms. McCrorey. Later at trial, Ms. Donohoe identified Mr. Mainor as her assailant.

B. Trial and Sentencing.

Following a two-day jury trial on July 16 and 17, 2019, the jury found Mr. Mainor guilty of home invasion; first, third, and fourth-degree burglary; first and second-degree assault against Ms. Donohoe; and reckless endangerment. The jury found Mr. Mainor not guilty of first and second-degree assault against Ms. McCrorey.

After polling the jury, the trial judge immediately stated, "All right. We'll go to sentencing." Mr. Mainor's defense counsel responded by requesting to postpone sentencing to undertake a long-form PSI. The trial judge indicated there was no need for a PSI, to which defense counsel responded that Mr. Mainor's mother was unable to be present that day even though she had been at the trial the prior day. In light of her absence, defense counsel emphasized the importance of providing the court with "some background information about [Mr. Mainor] in order to fashion an appropriate sentence." The trial judge then asked why Mr. Mainor's mother was unable to be present, to which defense counsel responded, "she has this thing called work that she had to attend." The trial judge speculated, "[s]o it's obviously not that important to her."

While asking the State's position on the request to postpone sentencing, the trial judge reasoned, "I think the jury is entitled to see the resolution of this case." The State offered no objection to the postponement. Following a short discussion about whether or not the trial judge was able to sentence Mr. Mainor for both the convictions at issue and other violations of probation, the trial judge again reiterated, "I see no need at

475 Md. 497

all, any benefit at all from a long-form PSI." Defense counsel then asked the trial judge to release the jury from the jury box, although acknowledging that the jury was free to stay if they wished. The trial judge responded, "that's not your decision. Maybe they would like to stay here .... They can stay right where they are, as far as I'm concerned." Defense counsel objected "to the [c]ourt's process[,]" to which the trial judge replied, "[this is a] process which I've followed for fifteen years."

The court then went on to hear the State's recommendations for sentencing as well as statements by two of Ms. Donohoe's sons. The State asked for a total sentence of fifty years. Following a discussion of merger related to several charges, the court then heard from defense counsel who asked for a "substantially lower" sentence.

257 A.3d 654

While addressing the court, defense counsel stated, "[m]y client is very young. As I indicated to the [c]ourt, I wish that his mother was capable of being here. Unfortunately, she did have to work." The trial judge answered, "[s]he could be here, [defense counsel], you know that." Defense counsel replied, "[s]he was here all day yesterday, Your Honor. It is hard for people to get away from work multiple days in a row, especially if they're in, you know, doing certain types of jobs." Finally, the court heard a brief statement from Mr. Mainor.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of twenty years' incarceration for first-degree burglary and twenty years' incarceration for...