Terrell v. State, 031419 MDSCA, 1705-2017
|Opinion Judge:||ZARNOCH, J.|
|Party Name:||CHASTIAN DEVON TERRELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND|
|Judge Panel:||Meredith, Kehoe, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.|
|Case Date:||March 14, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Special Appeals of Maryland|
Circuit Court for Somerset County Case No. 19-K-06-008068
Meredith, Kehoe, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Appellant Chastian Terrell ("Terrell") raises a single issue for our consideration: whether the trial court abused its discretion in not sua sponte reconsidering whether he was competent to stand trial. For reasons stated below, it is our opinion that the answer to that question is no. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction decision of the Circuit Court for Somerset County.
BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 6, 2005, Terrell was arrested on a warrant. During a search incident to arrest, a police officer found a digital scale and plastic bags containing 11.2 grams of cocaine. Terrell was charged with multiple counts of possession of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute.
On August 17, 2006, the circuit court granted the State's motion to consolidate these charges with those previously lodged against Terrell for first-degree assault, reckless endangerment, wearing or carrying a handgun, attempted fourth-degree burglary, and failure to obey a lawful order.
At a hearing the same day, the circuit court considered whether Terrell had the capacity to stand trial. A report had been prepared for the court by a physician "forensic evaluator" that concluded that Terrell was competent to stand trial "as he is able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him and to cooperate adequately with his attorney in his own defense."1 Relying on this report, the court concluded that Terrell was competent to stand trial. Defense counsel did not object to this competency finding.
Another issue resolved at the August 17th hearing was appellant's waiver of his jury trial right. The circuit court engaged in a colloquy with Terrell to determine the adequacy of his waiver. Appellant responded to all of the court's questions (including whether he was under the influence of drugs). As a result, the court found that Terrell had knowingly and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP