Mayberry v. Board of Ed.

• Decision Date: 28 April 2000
• Docket Number: No. 740,740
• Citation: 131 Md. App. 686,750 A.2d 677
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
• Parties: Hudson MAYBERRY, III v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.

750 A.2d 677

131 Md. App. 686

Hudson MAYBERRY, III v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.

No. 740, Sept. Term, 1999.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

April 28, 2000.

Thomas J. Wohlgemuth, Annapolis, for appellant.

P. Tyson Bennett (Reese and Carney, LLP, on the brief), Annapolis, for appellee.

Argued before HOLLANDER, SALMON and BYRNES, JJ.

HOLLANDER, Judge.

This appeal has its genesis in an opinion and order issued by the Board of Education of Anne Arundel County (the "Local Board"), appellee, affirming the decision of the Superintendent of the Anne Arundel County Public Schools (the "Superintendent") to suspend Hudson Mayberry, III ("Hudson" or "Chucky"), appellant, a high school student. Thereafter, the Maryland State Board of Education (the "State Board") summarily affirmed the Local Board's order. Appellant subsequently sought review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which upheld the State Board's decision. Hudson then noted an appeal to this Court and presents three questions for our review, which we have rephrased and reordered:

I. Did the State Board deprive appellant of his right to a hearing under COMAR 13A.01.01.03?

II. Did the Superintendent violate the requirements of Md.Code (1978, 1999 Repl.Vol.), § 7-305(c) of the Education Article ("E.A.") by "approving" a subordinate's actions?

III. Did the circuit court err by failing to articulate specific reasons for its ruling?

For the reasons that follow we shall affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND In January 1997, Chucky began attending Northeast Senior High School in Pasadena, pursuant to a "Conditional Reinstatement Contract" dated January 23, 1997 (the "Contract").¹ The Contract was framed as a letter from Leslie Mobray, the Director of Student Services for the Anne Arundel County Public Schools, to appellant's father, Hudson Mayberry, Jr. ("Mr. Mayberry"). It read, in part:

I have agreed to readmit [Hudson] to school at the Northeast High School for second semester under the following conditions:

1. Hudson will go to school each day that there is not a legal excuse for an absence.

2. Hudson will attend every class to which he is assigned unless excused by the teacher.

3. Hudson will complete and turn in all classwork and homework assigned to the best of his ability.

4. Hudson will pass a majority of courses attempted.

5. Hudson will be familiar with and obey all school rules at all times.

Failure to abide by these rules will result in Hudson's expulsion from the Anne Arundel County Public Schools....

Both Hudson and Mr. Mayberry signed the Contract.

On Friday, April 4, 1997, appellant was involved in a verbal altercation with his physical education instructor, Brandt Schanberger. Roy Skiles, Northeast's principal, wrote a letter dated April 7, 1997 addressed to Mr. Mayberry. Mr. Mayberry testified at the hearing before the Local Board that he never received this letter. Nevertheless, the letter stated, in part:

[Hudson] has been placed on temporary suspension from school because he verbally assaulted a teacher on April 4, 1997. This is a violation of Board of Education policy 902.17 Assaults by Students and is also a violation of his Conditional Reinstatement Contract....

My investigation of this incident indicates that this is a serious matter. Therefore, I am submitting a request to the Superintendent of Schools that Hudson be expelled from Northeast Senior High School.

Pursuant to [E.A. §] 7-305, the period of suspension begins on April 7, 1997 and continues until the Superintendent's designated representative concludes the investigation of this request. This process will include a conference with, Leon Washington, Special Assistant [for Student Discipline] to the Superintendent which will take place on Monday, April 14, 1997 at 1:00 p.m. Although this conference is not a hearing, it will be an opportunity for you and your child to present any information or evidence which you believe to be relevant to the allegation against them [sic]. You may bring an advocate or other representative with you to assist you at the conference.

Skiles read the policy into the record at the Local Board hearing:

For the purposes of this policy, the term assault means any unprovoked attack upon or malicious act of violence against another person, any attempt to commit such an act or any threat to commit such an act, if that threat could reasonably cause the other person to believe he or she is in imminent danger of serious physical harm.

Thereafter, by letter dated April 17, 1997, Skiles asked the Superintendent to approve an "extended suspension"² for appellant, pending the completion of Washington's investigation. On April 25, 1997, Skiles sent the Superintendent a second letter that read, in part:

Mr. Washington concluded his investigation and met with Hudson Mayberry and Mr. Mayberry on April 25, 1997. Mr. Washington determined that Board of Education policy 902.17 was not violated by Hudson Mayberry. However, Mr. Washington found that Hudson Mayberry was in clear violation of his [Contract].

An extended suspension is requested pending the start of home teaching which will be Hudson's educational program for the remainder of the school year. An alternative educational placement for Hudson Mayberry for the 1997-98 school year is requested.

In a report dated April 28, 1997, Washington summarized the information he collected based on: (1) interviewing two adult witnesses and sixty-five student witnesses to the incident; (2) reviewing Hudson's academic and disciplinary files; and (3) holding a conference with Hudson, Mr. Mayberry, Hudson's grandmother, and Hudson's attorney. Based on his findings, Washington indicated that he concurred with Skiles's recommendation that Hudson's extended suspension continue until a home teaching program could be initiated. Washington further suggested that Hudson "seek outside counseling to assist him with anger management issues."

In accordance with Skiles's request for an extended suspension and Washington's recommendation, Mobray issued a letter to Mr. Mayberry on April 28, 1997 (the "Mobray Letter"), which stated, in pertinent part:

This is to inform you that the Superintendent has approved Mr. Skiles' request. Accordingly, effective this date, Hudson is placed on extended suspension from Northeast High School pending the start of home teaching. Hudson will remain on home teaching until the end of the 1996-97 school term. An alternative placement will be sought for Hudson prior to the start of the 1997-98 school term.

As noted, Hudson appealed this decision to the Local Board. What follows is a brief summary of the evidence adduced at a hearing before a four-member panel of the Local Board on June 11, 1997.

On direct examination by the Superintendent's counsel, Schanberger was asked to recount the events that led up to the incident. According to Schanberger, appellant approached him on Wednesday, April 2, 1997, to inquire about appellant's grade in Schanberger's weight training class. Schanberger replied that appellant currently had a "D-." Hudson then asked if there were any way that he could improve his grade. Schanberger told Hudson that if he did all the work that was expected of him between then and the end of the marking period, he would give Hudson a "C." Hudson agreed.

Schanberger testified that Chucky failed to perform as promised. On Friday, April 4, 1997, when appellant again approached Schanberger to ask about his grade, Schanberger told appellant that because he had not fulfilled his end of the bargain, he would receive a "D" in the class. Hudson then "stormed out of the room."

Sometime thereafter, Hudson returned to class and subsequently joined a number of other students in the gymnasium's lobby to await dismissal. Schanberger stated that appellant began "talking very loudly" to another student, complaining about how Schanberger had reneged on his deal. Schanberger, who was between ten and fifteen feet away from appellant, told Hudson to give the other student "all the facts." Schanberger's description of what followed is illuminating:

[SCHANBERGER:] ... [Appellant] started getting verbally abusive with me. I can't remember the exact words he was saying, but he was saying things like, shut your mouth, mind your own business. A little later on he said something like, well, I'm going to beat you up and then the whole time I was talking in a normal manner. I wasn't being loud or anything, but I was saying, Chucky, tell him what the real facts are, tell him what the deal is.

Oh, just shut up, you know in that type of manner. And then when he said the last time that he was going to beat me up, you know, go ahead, if that's what you want to do, but tell him the facts. And then he stood up, threw his jacket off and stood right in front of me and kept saying, go ahead push me, why don't you hit me. Well, this whole time I was standing there with my hands in my pockets. I said, I'm not going to do that, Chucky, I have no reason to do that.

[SUPERINTENDENT'S COUNSEL:] What was the distance, if you can remember, between you and Chucky?

[SCHANBERGER:] Once he stood up, probably about a foot, foot and a half. And the whole time he kept saying things like, come on, old man, push me, you're afraid. You have no heart. And I kept repeating, and the whole time with my hands in my pocket in a normal voice, I said, Chucky, I'm not going to do that. And he kept saying that, and eventually he said, I know where you live, I'll get you....

Hudson testified that he believed he had completed all the requirements for Schanberger's class as of April 4, 1997. Consequently, he was dissatisfied with Schanberger's statement indicating that he would receive a "D." Appellant stated that after he heard his revised grade, he left class and attempted to speak to Craig Reynolds, Northeast's assistant principal, about the matter. Because Reynolds was evidently "too busy" to talk to appellant, Hudson then...