State v. Samples
Decision Date | 01 September 2016 |
Docket Number | Sept. Term, 2015,No. 1090,1090 |
Citation | 145 A.3d 634,229 Md.App. 531 |
Parties | State of Maryland v. Kelsey Samples |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Mary Ann Ince (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Brian M. Saccenti (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel: Graeff, Leahy, James R. Eyler, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, J.
This case addresses when a preliminary hearing is required when the State charges a defendant by information in the circuit court. Specifically, can the State charge a defendant with misdemeanor offenses in the circuit court in the absence of a preliminary hearing? The Circuit Court for Baltimore City answered that question in the negative and dismissed the criminal charges against Kelsey Samples, appellee.
On appeal,1 the State presents the following question for our review:
Did the circuit court improperly dismiss [appellee's] criminal case based upon the prosecutor's having charged misdemeanors by criminal information in a case where no preliminary hearing was conducted?
For the reasons set forth below, we shall reverse the judgment of the circuit court.
On March 19, 2015, appellee was charged by way of a statement of charges in the District Court of Maryland with four misdemeanors, three involving firearms and one involving drugs. On April 10, 2015, a criminal information was filed in the circuit court, charging appellee with: Count 1, wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun in a vehicle; Count 2, possession of a regulated firearm by a minor; Count 3, wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun on her person; and Count 4, possession of a controlled dangerous substance.
At a hearing in the circuit court on May 6, 2015, appellee moved for dismissal of the charges. She argued that the State improperly filed a criminal information on misdemeanor charges without a preliminary hearing in violation of Maryland Code § 4-102 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Article (“CP”) and Maryland Rule 4-201(c)(2)(A).
The State argued that a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing only if he or she is charged with a felony not within the jurisdiction of the District Court, and there is no right to a preliminary hearing where a criminal information is filed with respect to a crime that is a misdemeanor. It asserted that, because appellee was charged only with misdemeanors, she was not entitled to a preliminary hearing.
The court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. The State's timely appeal followed.
The sole question raised by the State on appeal is whether, in dismissing the information filed against appellee, the circuit court misapplied CP § 4-102(2), which governs charges by criminal information. The resolution of that question involves the interpretation of a statute.
Recently, this Court explained:
Allstate Lien & Recovery v. Stansbury , 219 Md.App. 575, 584–86, 101 A.3d 520 (2014), aff'd , 445 Md. 187, 126 A.3d 40 (2015).
The State argues that “the circuit court improperly dismissed [appellee's] criminal case based upon the prosecutor's having charged misdemeanors by criminal information in a case where no preliminary hearing was conducted.” It asserts that the court's ruling was based on an erroneous construction of CP § 4-102(2).
Title 4 of the Criminal Procedure Article governs “Pretrial Procedures.” CP § 4-102 provides:
The circuit court construed the phrase “in any other case” in subsection (2) to encompass misdemeanors, and therefore, it ruled that misdemeanors could be charged by criminal information in circuit court only when the defendant had a preliminary hearing at which probable cause was found to hold the defendant. Because appellant had not received a preliminary hearing, the circuit court ruled that the information was improperly filed, and it dismissed the case.
The State argues that the circuit court's construction of the statute was “contrary to the tenets of statutory construction, and inconsistent with statutes and rules applicable to the prosecution of misdemeanors and the differences in District Court and circuit court criminal jurisdiction.” It contends that the “right to a preliminary hearing applies where ‘a defendant is charged with a felony other than a felony within the jurisdiction of the District Court’ ” (quoting CP § 4-103(a), (c) ), and therefore, the phrase “ ‘in any other case’ patently refers to a ‘felony within the jurisdiction of the District Court.’ ” The State asserts that, because appellee was charged solely with misdemeanors, for which he was not entitled to a preliminary hearing, the circuit court erred in dismissing the misdemeanor charges against appellee.
Appellee disagrees. She contends that the circuit court “correctly construed § 4-102(2) to require a preliminary hearing as a prerequisite for the State to charge a person by criminal information” in the circuit court. Appellee argues that the phrase “ ‘in any other case’ in paragraph (2) clearly means in any case other than a case described in paragraph (1); or, in other words, in any case other than ‘a case involving a felony that does not involve a felony within the jurisdiction of the District Court.’ ” Therefore, she asserts, the circuit court properly concluded that the phrase “any other case” includes “cases involving only misdemeanors and/or felonies within the jurisdiction of the District Court.”
Pursuant to the Maryland Rules, an “offense shall be tried only on a charging document.” Md. Rule 4-201(a). A Md. Rule 4-102(a). An “ ‘[i]ndictment’ means a charging document returned by a grand jury and filed in a circuit court.” Md. Rule 4-102(d). An “ ‘[i]nformation’ means a charging document filed in a court by a State's Attorney.” Md. Rule 4-102(e).2
In the District Court, “an offense may be tried (1) on an information, (2) on a statement of charges filed pursuant to subsection (b) Rule 4-211, or (3) on a citation in the case of a petty offense or when authorized by statute.” Md. Rule 4-201(b). In the circuit court, an offense may be tried:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hosford v. Chateau Foghorn LP
... ... although federal law vests a landlord renting subsidized housing with discretion not to pursue eviction in all instances of criminal activity, state courts cannot be given discretion to overrule the landlord's exercise of discretion. (Emphasis in original). The circuit court relied upon three ... ...
-
Brown v. State
...or interfering with arrest constitutes a misdemeanor).2 On September 1, 2016, the Court of Special Appeals, in State v. Samples, 229 Md.App. 531, 145 A.3d 634 (2016), released a nearly identical but reported opinion addressing the same issue. Ms. Samples did not petition this Court for a wr......
-
Brown v. State
...(resisting or interfering with arrest constitutes a misdemeanor). 2. On September 1, 2016, the Court of Special Appeals, in State v. Samples, 229 Md. App. 531 (2016), released a nearly identical but reported opinion addressing the same issue. Ms. Samples did not petition this Court for a wr......