Simms v. Md. Dep't of Health
| Decision Date | 30 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20 Sept. Term, 2019,20 Sept. Term, 2019 |
| Parties | Romechia SIMMS v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Michael T. Torres, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued by Ari S. Elbaum, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent
Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Clayton Greene Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.
Barbera, C.J. Maryland law provides a mechanism by which a person can be determined to have been guilty of a crime but "not criminally responsible" for its commission. See generally Incompetency and Criminal Responsibility in Criminal Cases, Md. Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol., 2018 Cum. Supp.) Crim. Proc. ("CP") §§ 3-101 –123. Under that circumstance, the person is committed to the Maryland Department of Health ("Health Department"). The statutory scheme provides, in appropriate circumstances, the option of a court order allowing for the committed person's "conditional release" to the community with specific conditions to which the committed person must adhere. The statutory scheme also spells out what occurs if a committed person, after having been placed on conditional release, is alleged to have violated one or more conditions of release. The present case focuses on the steps a court is to take upon receiving a State's Attorney ("State") petition alleging that a committed person has violated conditional release.
Ms. Romechia Simms, upon pleading guilty in the Circuit Court for Charles County to involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of her young child, was found not criminally responsible. She was committed to the Health Department and conditionally released pursuant to court order. Later, the State filed with the circuit court a petition for revocation or modification of Ms. Simms' conditional release, alleging that she had violated a condition of her release. Acting pursuant to CP § 3-121, the court reviewed the petition, and upon "determin[ing] that there is probable cause to believe" that Ms. Simms "has violated a conditional release," issued a hospital warrant. Upon execution of the warrant and in furtherance of the court's order, Ms. Simms was recommitted to a mental health facility in anticipation of a required hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") "[w]ithin 10 days after the committed person is returned to the Health Department in accordance with the hospital warrant." CP § 3-121(e) – (f).
Ms. Simms asserts that the process for issuing a hospital warrant and recommitment pending the hearing on the petition for revocation or modification violates constitutional due process. Ms. Simms argues that recommitment of a person alleged to have violated conditional release must be based not only upon the stated requirement that the court find "probable cause to believe that the committed person has violated a conditional release," CP § 3-121(e), but must also include a finding, not mentioned in that subsection or elsewhere in Title 3 of the Criminal Procedure Article ("Title 3"), that the committed person was currently a danger to self or to the person or property of others.
For reasons that follow, we hold that CP § 3-121(e) does not violate due process under either the Federal Constitution or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. We are satisfied that a court may issue a hospital warrant upon a finding of probable cause to believe that the committed person violated a term of her conditional release, without also having to make a finding that the committed person is presently dangerous. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
The question before us requires that we focus on the hospital warrant procedure set forth in CP § 3-121(e)(1). It is helpful, though, to consider that subsection together with the remainder of that section and others contained in Title 3. We therefore begin with a brief overview of the relevant portions of Title 3.1
Title 3 provides that a court2 is to commit a person to the Health Department if that person has been found not criminally responsible for the commission of a criminal act.3 Once committed, the "committed person"4 may be granted conditional release if that person "would not be a danger ... to self or to the person or property of others if released from confinement with conditions imposed by the court." CP § 3-114(c).
CP § 3-121 () lays out the process by which such allegations are addressed. Subsections 3-121(a) through (e) provide, among other procedures, that upon a petition from the State for revocation or modification of conditional release,5 the court is to review the petition to determine whether "there is probable cause to believe that the committed person has violated a conditional release[.]" CP § 3-121(e). If the court finds there is such probable cause, then the court "promptly shall ... issue a hospital warrant6 for the committed person and direct that on execution the committed person shall be transported to the facility designated by the Health Department[.]" CP § 3-121(e)(1). The court then sends a copy of the hospital warrant to the State, the Public Defender, counsel of record for the committed person, the Office of Administrative Hearings ("Office"), and the Health Department. CP § 3-121(e)(2).
"Within 10 days after the committed person is returned to the Health Department in accordance with the hospital warrant, the Office shall hold a hearing[.]" CP § 3-121(f). At that hearing the committed person is entitled "to be represented by counsel[,] ... to offer evidence, to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and to exercise any other rights ... consider[ed] necessary for a fair hearing[.]" CP § 3-121(g)(1)–(2).
The ALJ presiding over the revocation hearing determines "(i) whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the State has proved that the committed person violated conditional release; and (ii) whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the committed person nevertheless has proved eligibility for conditional release." CP § 3-121(g)(3). Once the hearing is concluded, the ALJ "promptly shall: (i) send a report of the hearing and determination to the court; and (ii) send copies of the report to the committed person, counsel for the committed person, the State's Attorney, and the Health Department." CP § 3-121(h)(1).
Section 3-121(h)(2) provides a five-day opportunity for the committed person, the State, or the Health Department to file exceptions to the determination of the ALJ. Section 3-121(i) addresses the court's obligations upon receiving the ALJ's report:
CP § 3-121(i). The committed person has the right to appeal the court's decision. CP § 3-121(k).7
The facts of this case are undisputed. In February 2016, Ms. Simms appeared before the Circuit Court for Charles County and entered an Alford plea to the commission of involuntary manslaughter in causing the death of her three-year old son.8 After accepting the plea, the court found that, at the time of the crime, Ms. Simms suffered from a mental disorder that caused her to lack the capacity to appreciate the criminality of her act and act in accordance with the law. Then, pursuant to CP § 3-110, the court made the additional finding that Ms. Simms was not criminally responsible at the time of the offense.
The circuit court determined that Ms. Simms would not be a danger to herself or others if released from confinement with certain conditions. Pursuant to CP § 3-111 and § 3-112, the court issued an Order of Conditional Release in March 2016 that detailed sixteen conditions requiring Ms. Simms' compliance over a five-year period. Among those conditions Ms. Simms was required to attend regularly scheduled therapy appointments. In March 2017 the court amended its original Order of Conditional Release to change Ms. Simms' treatment from the Assertive Community Treatment team to regular out-patient clinical services with QCI Behavioral Health.
In September 2017, Ms. Simms' therapist expressed concerns to the Health Department that Ms. Simms was exhibiting a "decrease in psychological functioning." The therapist noted that Ms. Simms missed therapy appointments and showed "symptoms of depression, anxiety, irritable mood," and had become "easily distracted[.]" The therapist added that Ms. Simms was "unable to concentrate/focus," experienced "short term memory loss
, and" was "grieving the death of her son." The therapist recommended that Ms. Simms "obtain a psychological evaluation and be reconsidered for a higher level of treatment than what is currently being given." The State conducted an investigation pursuant to CP § 3-121(a) and, on September 13, 2017, filed a petition for revocation of Ms. Simms' conditional release. The petition alleged that Ms. Simms violated conditional release by missing required therapy appointments. On the same day, at what had been a regularly scheduled status hearing,9 the court, although not required by Title 3 to do so, allowed Ms. Simms' counsel to address his concerns about the procedures set forth in § 3-121(e).10 As described earlier,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aleman v. State
...scheme and may be returned to the mental health facility if the conditions are violated. CP § 3-121 ; see also Simms v. Department of Health , 467 Md. 238, 223 A.3d 1012 (2020).3. Comparison As is evident, the determination whether a defendant is competent to stand trial is distinct from th......
- MCB Woodberry Developer, LLC v. Council of Owners of the Millrace Condo., Inc.
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Collins
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Collins
... ... attorney asserted that "the pressures of her life" ... and mental health issues, including periods of depression, ... mitigated against disbarment. Id. at 381, 773 ... ...