Simms v. Md. Dep't of Health
Decision Date | 27 February 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 1898, Sept. Term, 2017,1898, Sept. Term, 2017 |
Citation | 240 Md.App. 294,203 A.3d 48 |
Parties | Romechia SIMMS v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Michael T. Torres (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Ari S. Elbaum (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Wright, Nazarian, Alan M. Wilner (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
In February 2016 in the Circuit Court for Charles County, Romechia Simms, appellant, was found not criminally responsible ("NCR") for the death of her three-year-old son. She was conditionally released from commitment to the Maryland Department of Health ("the Department"), appellees, subject to conditions. Alleging that Ms. Simms violated her Order of Conditional Release, the State petitioned the circuit court to issue a hospital warrant pursuant to Md. Code , § 3-121 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Article("CP"). The circuit court granted the relief requested and issued a hospital warrant directing that Simms be transported to the hospital for an administrative review hearing.
In September 2017, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") recommended that Ms. Simms be released from confinement subject to several conditions, including a voluntary stay at the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center ("Perkins Hospital") until she could be placed at an appropriate residential treatment center. In October 2017, the circuit court accepted the ALJ's recommendations.
Before being conditionally released, Ms. Simms filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Circuit Court for Howard County, the county where the hospital was located, alleging that she was being unconstitutionally confined. The circuit court found that Ms. Simms was not entitled to relief because the hospital warrant issued by the Circuit Court for Charles County was lawful. Ms. Simms timely appealed and presents the following questions for our review, which we have expanded for ease of discussion:1
As to the first question presented, we answer in the affirmative, and answer the second third questions in the negative. As to the third question, Ms. Simms makes two arguments but they are really two faces of the same coin. Her first argument is that dangerousness must be established anew during the hospital warrant phase, and second that it is a failure of due process not to do so. We must necessarily address the first argument before we address the second, as the negative answer to the first, necessarily requires an answer of no merit to the second.
Ms. Simms has battled serious mental health issues since late 2014, when she first began experiencing visions and beliefs that people were knocking on her door with guns. In February 2015, her symptoms worsened, and she began to believe that people were trying to kill her. Around this time, Ms. Simms was evaluated at Southern Maryland Hospital Center ("SMHC"), where she would later be readmitted.
At SMHC, Ms. Simms espoused beliefs that she and her family members had been raped under hypnosis
, and that both she and her son had been shot. Around that same time, she jumped out of a moving taxi with her son and threatened the taxi driver. She was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and was discharged in March 2015.
In April 2015, Ms. Simms participated in an intake assessment at Regenerations Counseling Services where she complained of "stress" but was unable to identify the cause behind her stress. She was described as "guarded, paranoid, depressed, and irritable." Later that month, Ms. Simms met with a psychiatrist and stated a belief that people, including her boyfriend, were trying to kill her.
Ms. Simms' degrading mental health condition ended in tragedy. In May 2015, police found Ms. Simms pushing a swing holding the body of her deceased three-year-old son. Ms. Simms had reportedly pushed the child on the swing for forty straight hours. She was charged with Child Abuse Resulting in Death, Involuntary Manslaughter and Child Neglect on September 11, 2015.
In December 2015, Ms. Simms participated in a pretrial evaluation where she was considered competent to stand trial. Ultimately, she was found NCR based on evidence of experiencing auditory hallucinations, visual hallucinations, and paranoid delusions
that made her feel unsafe. She also claimed that her sleep was impaired and voices told her to take her son to the park. Once there, the voices told her that there was a battle in the park between heaven and hell, and that her son would remain safe in the swing.
Ms. Simms was readmitted at SMHC after her son's death. The reason for admission was listed as "psychosis
." Ms. Simms was described as tearful and confused. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia, prescribed Haloperidol, Benztropine, and Mirtazapine, and was discharged at the end of the month. In August 2015, Ms. Simms met with a psychiatrist and endorsed "passive death wishes, stating, ‘Sometimes I wish I was dead.’ "
In February 2016, Ms. Simms entered an Alford plea2 to the charge of involuntary manslaughter. After reviewing reports from experts for both the State and the defense, the Circuit Court for Charles County found that, at the time of the criminal act, Ms. Simms had a mental disorder that caused her to lack the capacity to appreciate the criminality of her act and to conform her actions in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the circuit court found Ms. Simms NCR for the involuntary manslaughter of her son and determined that she would not be a danger to herself or the person or property of others, if released with conditions.
In March 2016, the circuit court issued an Order of Conditional Release for Ms. Simms, pursuant to CP §§ 3-111 and CP 3-112. Ms. Simms was conditionally released from commitment to the Department subject to the following conditions:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aleman v. State
...the writ is sought for a purpose other than to challenge the legality of a conviction or sentence. See, e.g., Simms v. Maryland Dep't of Health, 240 Md. App. 294, 312, 203 A.3d 48, cert. granted sub nom. Simms v. State, 464 Md. 10, 210 A.3d 183 (2019). As Mr. Aleman is not challenging any c......
-
Fulgium v. Fulgium
... ... Ms. Fulgium testified regarding her health during the marriage. She had several medical conditions that required surgery, and Mr. Fulgium ... ...
-
Piechocki v. Alam
... ... Maryland Department of Health. (ECF No. 1 at 2). Although Mr ... Piechocki filed his Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ... apply, Mr. Piechocki was permitted to appeal the denial of ... those petitions. Simms v. Maryland Department of ... Health, 240 Md.App. 294, 314 (2019) (finding that an ... ...
-
Simms v. Md. Dep't of Health
...to the Court of Special Appeals. That court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus. Simms v. Md. Dep't of Health , 240 Md. App. 294, 203 A.3d 48 (2019).16 We granted certiorari to answer three interrelated questions presented by Ms. Simms. All three, either directl......