State v. Reichman, 80

• Decision Date: 09 January 1973
• Docket Number: No. 80,80
• Citation: 298 A.2d 487,16 Md.App. 581
• Parties: STATE of Maryland v. Robert E. REICHMAN.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 581

16 Md.App. 581

298 A.2d 487

STATE of Maryland v. Robert E. REICHMAN.

No. 80.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 9, 1973.

Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Andrew L. Sonner, State's Atty., Montgomery County and Darrel L. Longest, Asst. State's Atty., for applicant.

William Blanton McDanald, Rockville, for respondent.

Before MOYLAN, GILBERT and SCANLAN, JJ.

MOYLAN, Judge.

Robert E. Reichman was convicted on February 26, 1968, of robbery, in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, and sentenced to three years imprisonment dating from August 7, 1967. On December 12, 1968, he was adjudged a defective delinquent by a jury and committed to Patuxent Institution for an indeterminate period of confinement without either maximum or minimum limits. On December 11, 1970, a petition was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (the bona fide residence of Reichman when he was originally sentenced) by his attorney, in his behalf, requesting a redetermination hearing before a jury. At a hearing on March 22-23 1971 (Judge Ralph G. Shure, presiding), a jury found Reichman still to be a defective delinquent. Even before the order recommitting him to Patuxent was signed on May 18, 1971, he sought leave to appeal that redetermination.

On September 20, 1971, Judge Shure sent a memorandum to the attorney appointed to represent Reichman in his application for leave to appeal stating that he understood that Reichman had served the entire three-year sentence imposed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on the robbery conviction and that Reichman had continued to contact him concerning his incarceration in Patuxent. He suggested to the attorney that an additional evaluation be made of the inmate by a psychiatrist of his own choice, and he concluded, '. . . after which I will be glad to arrange for an additional hearing as to whether he should not now be removed from Patuxent.'

On October 22, 1971, Reichman's attorney filed a 'Petition to Remand without Prejudice' in the Court of Special Appeals advising the Court of the 'unsolicited communication' from Judge Shure and asking that an order be passed 'remanding the captioned case to the lower Court for further action, without prejudice to Appellant's right to resubmit the said case to this Court for consideration of his Application for Leave to Appeal.' The petition was denied. On December 2, 1971, the application for leave to appeal was withdrawn.

Pursuant to Judge Shure's suggestion, Reichman was examined by Dr. Harold Kaufman, a psychiatrist practicing in the District of Columbia. Dr. Kaufman had previously evaluated Reichman, and a copy of his report based on that evaluation dated February 22, 1971, in which he expressed the opinion that Reichman was no longer a danger to society, was admitted into evidence by the defense at the redetermination hearing held on March 22-23, 1971. Dr. Kaufman, in a report dated June 9, 1972, addressed to the inmate's attorney, again reiterated that it was his professional opinion that Reichman no longer met the definition of a defective delinquent.

Following the receipt of Dr. Kaufman's report, Judge Shure scheduled a further hearing into the matter. The hearing was held on August 9, 1972. The State asserts that it did not know the purpose of the hearing until that very morning and that it had no knowledge of the existence of Dr. Kaufman's report until then. The State further asserts that at a conference in Judge Shure's chambers, off the record, before the hearing, it first learned of the court's intention to release the inmate from Patuxent on the basis of Dr. Kaufman's report. At the hearing, the State moved to dismiss the proceedings contending that the hearing was not within the framework of Article 31B, Section 10(b), which provides that a petition for redetermination cannot be filed less than three years following the prior seeking of a petition for review. It contended, therefore, that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

In anticipation of the court's denial of the motion to dismiss and of the admission of Dr. Kaufman's report over the State's objection, the State requested a short continuance to enable it to elicit expert evidence from Patuxent on the inmate's status. In support of its motion, it proffered a report from Patuxent which indicated that as of June 20, 1972, the authorities there felt that it was too soon to assess whether Reichman had made any actual therapeutic progress. The report was admitted into evidence as State's Exhibit 1. At the same time, Dr. Kaufman's report was admitted into evidence as Defendant's Exhibit 1.

The court answered the State's jurisdictional objection, implicitly denied its request for a continuance, and proceeded to grant relief to Reichman:

'. . . We are here pursuant to my order and in answer to the State's suggestion, Article 31(b), (31B) it is this section that provides right be given to the defendant to insist upon a hearing after certain time has elapsed.

'This redetermination is not at the instance of the defendant but at the instance of the Court, not by virtue of any right given a defendant by statute but by virtue of the Court's interest in this case.

'This man's term has now expired. He was confined August 7, 1967 for a period of three years. This is August 9, 1972. I have followed this case, and I did take an interest in this man and in view of recent Supreme Court statements on this question, but more particularly because of my belief that this man is no longer a defective delinquent I think he should now be released and the Court will sign an order releasing him from...