Md. Dep't of Health v. Sheffield
| Citation | 233 A.3d 265,247 Md.App. 154 |
| Decision Date | 29 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1046, Sept. Term, 2019,1046, Sept. Term, 2019 |
| Parties | MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH v. Jamal Lateef SHEFFIELD |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Morgan Clipp (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by Lisa J. Sansone (Law Office of Lisa J. Sansone on the brief), all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Berger, Wells, James P. Salmon (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
In 1997, Jamal Lateef Sheffield, appellant, was convicted of second-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of use of a handgun in connection with a felony or crime of violence, for which he received a life sentence.1 In 2018, Sheffield, through counsel, filed a Petition for Post Conviction Relief and a Motion to Transfer Sheffield to Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center ("Perkins"), an inpatient psychiatric facility operated by the Maryland Department of Health ("MDH"). The purpose of the transfer was the restoration of Sheffield's competence in order to assist counsel in his post conviction proceeding.
The trial court granted Sheffield's motion to transfer. MDH moved to vacate the trial court's order transferring Sheffield, which the trial court denied. On appeal, MDH presents the following single issue for our consideration:
Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by granting the motion to transfer Sheffield from a correctional facility to MDH's psychiatric facility.
For the reasons explained herein, we shall vacate the ruling of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
Following a jury trial, Sheffield was convicted of second-degree murder and associated offenses on October 10, 1997. A notice of appeal was filed after Sheffield's conviction but was subsequently withdrawn. In 1998, Carol E. Chance, then-Chief of the Collateral Review Division of the Office of the Public Defender ("OPD"), wrote a letter to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County indicating that she had been asked to assist Sheffield in connection with "possible post conviction relief" and asked that the clerk send her the docket entries for Sheffield's case. The OPD did not file for post conviction relief.
On April 13, 2016, Sheffield filed a pro se Petition for Post Conviction Relief. The circuit court subsequently referred Sheffield's petition to the Office of the Public Defender on May 18, 2016. In late 2017 or early 2018, Sheffield sent a letter to the circuit court.2 On May 8, 2018, the trial court sent a letter to the OPD requesting "that you folks investigate this case."
On December 27, 2018, Sheffield filed, through counsel, a Petition for Post Conviction Relief and a motion seeking his transfer from Western Correctional Institute to Perkins.3 Attached to the motion was a report from psychiatrist Dr. Solomon Meltzer. Dr. Meltzer diagnosed Sheffield with schizophrenia
, noted that Sheffield was not taking any medications at the time of his interview with Melzer, and commented that Sheffield had been "non-compliant with psychiatric medications at various points in his incarceration." Dr. Meltzer expressed that, in his professional opinion, Sheffield was "incompetent to stand trial." Dr. Meltzer recommended that Sheffield be treated at Perkins because it was his "understanding that Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center provides treatment for incompetent inmates who require adjudication of post conviction matters." MDH, which was not a party to the post conviction action, was not served with a copy of Sheffield's petition or motion to transfer.
The trial court held a hearing on the motion to transfer on June 20, 2019.4 MDH was not notified of the hearing. The court heard testimony from Dr. Meltzer, who testified that Sheffield was not competent to stand trial and "lack[ed] the ability to participate in post conviction proceedings." At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that it was "appropriate that we send [Sheffield] to Perkins." The trial judge issued an oral ruling granting the motion to transfer. The trial court's grant of the motion to transfer was docketed the same day. The court asked Sheffield's counsel to provide a written order for him to sign. Counsel subsequently provided the court with a written order memorializing the previous oral ruling, and the court signed the written order on June 24, 2019. The June 24, 2019 order required that Sheffield "be transferred from Western Correctional Institution to Clifton T. Perkins Hospital forthwith for treatment." On June 28, 2019, the trial court issued a subsequent order with an additional phrase. Specifically, the June 28th order required that Sheffield be transferred to "Perkins Hospital forthwith for treatment to restore competency for post conviction proceedings." Both the June 24, 2019 order and the June 28, 2019 order were entered by the clerk on July 3, 2019.
On July 2, 2019, the prosecutor contacted the trial court via email and advised the court that he had been contacted by Ms. Jo Anne Dudeck, Manager of Centralized Admissions for MDH, who had advised him that Sheffield was "not being transported" because the circuit court's order "does not have language that the transfer is for a Criminal Procedure Section 315 evaluation."5 The parties agreed to two additional orders for the circuit court to sign, and the trial court signed both orders on July 5, 2019. The first provided:
The other order entered by the trial court on July 5th was a form suggested by Ms. Dudeck and was titled "Commitment to the Maryland Department of Health after a Finding of Defendant's Incompetency to Stand Trial and a Finding that by Reason of a Mental Disorder or Mental Retardation the Defendant is a Danger to Self or the Person or Property of Another ( Criminal Procedure § 3-106 )." This order appears to be the standard form order used by most trial courts when committing an individual to MDH pursuant to Md. Code , § 3-106 of the Criminal Procedure Article ("CP"). Neither of the orders signed by the circuit court judge on July 5, 2019 were ever docketed.
On July 11, 2019, MDH filed a motion titled Motion to Vacate Orders of June 28, 2019 and July 5, 2019. MDH argued that there was no statutory authority to support the order of a competency determination, evaluation, or commitment in a post conviction proceeding. Sheffield opposed the motion. Before the motion to vacate had been ruled upon by the circuit court, on July 26, 2019, MDH noted an appeal of the four orders granting the motion to transfer. On August 8, 2019, Sheffield filed a motion to dismiss MDH's appeal.6 MDH filed a response on August 16, 2019, and we denied the motion to dismiss on September 3, 2019. Sheffield subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss premised upon MDH's delay in filing its brief. We granted MDH's request for an extension of time to file its brief and denied Sheffield's motion.
In this appeal, MDH asserts that the trial court erred by committing Sheffield to MDH because there is no statutory authority to support a commitment under the circumstances presented in this case. As we shall explain, we agree.
First, we address Sheffield's assertion that MDH's July 26, 2019 appeal is untimely. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-202(a), a "notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken." Sheffield asserts that the trial court orally granted his motion to transfer on June 20, 2019 and that the ruling was reflected in the electronic docket entry on the same day.7 Sheffield contends that the notice of appeal was due on or before July 20, 2019. We disagree. The Court of Appeals explained in Byrum v. Horning , 360 Md. 23, 33, 756 A.2d 560 (2000), that "[i]t is the entry of [a] separate document on the docket which constitutes the entry of the judgment ... and it is the date of that entry which commences the running of the time for noting an appeal." The trial court's written orders dated June 24, 2019 and June 28, 2019 were entered on the docket by the clerk on July 3, 2019. Furthermore, the electronic docket entry cited by Sheffield in support of his assertion that the notice of appeal was untimely specifically provides that an "Order [was] to be submitted by Counsel for Defendant." Because MDH's notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of July 3, 2019, we reject Sheffield's assertion that the notice of appeal was untimely filed.
We, therefore, turn to the merits of MDH's appeal and consider the issue of whether the circuit court had the authority to issue an order transferring Sheffield from Western Correctional Institute to Perkins. Title 3 of the Criminal Procedure Article governs incompetency and criminal responsibility in criminal cases. The trial court's duties regarding competence determinations are outlined in CP § 3-104, which provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial