Hill v. State

EDWARD EFFION HILL v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1503

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

August 26, 2020

APPELLATE JURISDICTION—PETITION FOR COMMITMENT FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT—MULTIPLE FILINGS PERMITTED—FINAL JUDGMENT

EX POST FACTO CLAUSE—SIGNIFICANT RISK OF INCREASED PUNISHMENT BY PROLONGING TERM OF INCARCERATION

In 2011, appellant Edward Hill received a twenty-five year sentence for first-degree assault, a concurrent twenty year sentence for use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and a concurrent fifteen year sentence for possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence.

In December 2017, Hill petitioned the Circuit Court for Prince George's County pursuant to Health General ("HG") § 8-507 for commitment to the Department of Health for drug treatment. The court denied the petition, but suggested that Hill petition again in approximately one year.

On October 1, 2018, the General Assembly amended HG § 8-507 to prevent a court from granting a petition for commitment for a defendant convicted of a crime of violence until the defendant is eligible for parole.

In March 2019, Hill again petitioned for HG § 8-507 commitment. The court granted the petition, apparently unaware of the General Assembly's recent amendment. The Department of Health responded by informing the court that, due to the amendments to HG § 8-507, Hill could not be committed until he reached parole eligibility after May 10, 2024. Hill then filed a motion in the circuit court asking it to backdate its decision and grant his petition. Hill further argued that application of the amended HG § 8-507 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The court denied Hill's petition and held that there was no ex post facto violation.

Hill timely appealed, and the State moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Fuller v. State, 397 Md. 372 (2007).

Held: Motion to dismiss denied. Judgment reversed.

In Fuller, the Court of Appeals held that the denial of an HG § 8-507 petition is not appealable because it is not a final judgment. Regarding final judgments, the Fuller Court held that because an inmate may file unlimited HG § 8-507 petitions, a single denial does not constitute an appealable final judgment.

Hill's circumstances are distinguishable from Fuller's due to the 2018 amendments to HG § 8-507. Whereas Fuller was permitted to file multiple HG § 8-507 petitions and was eligible for commitment at all times, the 2018 amendments to HG § 8-507 have effectively terminated Hill's ability to seek a commitment until he reaches parole eligibility in 2024. The court's denial of Hill's petition settled the rights of the parties and effectively foreclosed any relief to Hill. Accordingly, unlike in Fuller, Hill's denial constitutes a final judgment, and is therefore appealable to this Court.

Not only does this Court have jurisdiction to consider Hill's appeal, but the 2018 amendments to HG § 8-507 constitute an ex post facto violation when applied to Hill.

An ex post facto violation may occur where a change in the law creates a significant risk of increasing the punishment attached to a crime. Here, the 2018 amendments increased Hill's punishment; absent the 2018 amendments, Hill would have been released from prison and committed to the Department of Health in 2019, subject to appropriate probationary conditions. The 2018 amendments, however, now require Hill to serve his sentence until at least 2024. Because the amendments increase Hill's punishment, they violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case No. CT101633X

REPORTED

Beachley, Gould, Woodward, Patrick L. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Beachley, J.

*Leahy, Andrea M., J., did not participate in the Court's decision to designate this opinion for publication pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-605.1.

In 2011, appellant Edward Effion Hill was convicted of first-degree assault and related firearm crimes. At the time of Hill's conviction, he had an essentially unrestricted right to file petitions requesting commitment to the Department of Health for substance abuse treatment pursuant to section 8-507 of the Health General Article as it existed prior to October 1, 2018. Effective October 1, 2018, however, the General Assembly amended that statute to preclude a court from ordering a commitment for substance abuse treatment for a defendant convicted of a crime of violence "until the defendant is eligible for parole." Md. Code (2019 Repl. Vol.), § 8-507 of the Health General Article ("HG"). Because Hill was convicted of first-degree assault—a crime of violence—he contends that the legislature's amendments violate the Ex Post Facto Clause found in Article I of the United States Constitution and Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

In response to Hill's appeal, the State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Court of Appeals precedent requires dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As we shall explain, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the denial of Hill's petition. We further conclude that the 2018 amendments to HG § 8-507, as applied to Hill, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2011, Hill was convicted of first-degree assault, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for the assault charge; twenty years, concurrent, for use of a handgun; and fifteen years, concurrent, for possession of a firearm.

On December 15, 2017, Hill filed a motion pursuant to HG § 8-507 requesting commitment to the Department of Health in order to receive drug treatment. At a hearing on March 13, 2018, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County denied the petition, stating:

[A]s I indicated, I fully intend to grant this motion at some point. . . . I'm just not ready to do it today and let me tell you why. . . . [T]here were a couple of other prior criminal events and particularly in the armed robbery which is also a crime of violence. Normally, for a crime of violence, the parole considerations is [sic] fifty percent (50%). You haven't even served a third and that is sort of the minimum that I think would be appropriate. . . . I know this is disappointing and discouraging, but the reason you're here is so you can hear me say that if you continue on the path that you're currently on, you do everything you should do, you continue to progress, I will grant this motion in about a year.

On March 4, 2019, Hill again petitioned for HG § 8-507 commitment. After a hearing on May 10, 2019, the court granted the petition, pending availability of a bed. The court stated its reasoning for granting the petition as follows:

You . . . are an example of someone who did everything you could to get better. You got your GED. You have been engaged in a lot of programs. You have a letter from your supervisor at the plant. You have done what we hope as a society prison will do for everybody, and that is make some change in your focus and your approach and, as you said, in your decision-making. So I recognize it's a very serious crime, and I recognize the position of the victim's family.

I am going to sign the Health General Commitment for you.

On May 23, 2019, the Department of Health sent a letter to the court indicating that, as a result of amendments to HG § 8-507, Hill would not be eligible for the treatment program "until parole eligibility after May 10, 2024." At the time of Hill's conviction, Hill was eligible for commitment pursuant to HG § 8-507(a), which then provided:

Subject to the limitations in this section, a court that finds in a criminal case or during a term of probation that a defendant has an alcohol or drug dependency may commit the defendant as a condition of release, after conviction, or at any other time the defendant voluntarily agrees to participate in treatment, to the Department for treatment that the Department recommends, even if:

(1) The defendant did not timely file a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Rule 4-345; or

(2) The defendant timely filed a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Rule 4-345 which was denied by the court.

On October 1, 2018, however, the General Assembly amended HG § 8-507, disallowing commitment for prisoners convicted of crimes of violence until they become eligible for parole. The statute now reads:

(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection and subject to the limitations in this section, a court that finds in a criminal case or during a term of probation that a defendant has an alcohol or drug dependency may commit the defendant as a condition of release, after conviction, or at any other time the defendant voluntarily agrees to participate in treatment, to the Department for treatment that the Department recommends, even if:

(i) The defendant did not timely file a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Rule 4-345; or

(ii) The defendant timely filed a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Rule 4-345 which was denied by the court.

(2)(i) If a defendant is serving a sentence for a crime of violence, as defined in § 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article, a court may not order the Department to treat a defendant under this section until the defendant is eligible for parole.

(ii) Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit a defendant who is serving a sentence for a crime of violence, as defined in § 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article, from participating in any other treatment program or receiving treatment under the supervision of the Department under any other provision of law.

(Emphasis added).

In response to the Health Department's May 23, 2019 letter, Hill filed a motion asking the court to "issue an order back[-]dating the [c]ourt's decision...