Hoggle v. State

252 Md.App. 124

258 A.3d 918

Catherine Ashley HOGGLE

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 237, Sept. Term, 2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

September 1, 2021

Argued by: David Felsen (Felsen & Sargent, LLC, Rockville, MD), on the brief, for Appellant.

Argued by: Jer Welter (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD), on the brief, for Appellee.

Panel: Kehoe, Arthur, Leahy, JJ.

Arthur, J.

When a criminal defendant has been found incompetent to stand trial ("IST"), Maryland Code (2001, 2018 Repl. Vol.), section 3-107(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article ("CP"), dictates how long the State has to restore the defendant to competence before the charges must be dismissed.

In general, if a person has been charged with a felony or a "crime of violence" and has been found IST, a court must dismiss the charges "after the lesser of the expiration of 5 years or the maximum sentence for the most serious offense charged." CP § 3-107(a)(1). Similarly, if a person has been charged with a crime other than a felony or a crime of violence and has been found IST, a court, in general, must dismiss the charges "after the lesser of the expiration of 3 years or the maximum sentence for the most serious offense charged." CP § 3-107(a)(2). Finally, regardless of the time periods specified in CP § 3-107(a)(1) and (2), a court, in general, must dismiss the charges if it "considers that resuming the criminal proceeding would be unjust because so much time has passed since the defendant was found" IST. CP § 3-107(b).

Section 3-107 does not address whether the State may recharge the defendant after a court has dismissed the charges under § 3-107(a)(1) or (a)(2) because of the passage of time. The Court of Appeals, however, has held that the State may recharge the defendant, but that the IST commitment may continue only if the State rebuts a presumption that the defendant will not regain competence in the foreseeable future (i.e., only if the State rebuts a presumption that the defendant is not "restorable"). State v. Ray , 429 Md. 566, 596, 57 A.3d 444 (2012).

The statute also fails to address when the three-year or five-year period in § 3-107(a) begins to run. Looking to the legislative history and the policy underlying the statute, this Court has held that the period begins to run when the defendant is found IST on the charged offenses, not when the defendant is first charged with those offenses. Kimble v. State , 242 Md. App. 73, 88, 213 A.3d 727 (2019).

The statute also fails to address the issue in this case. Here, the State brought misdemeanor charges; the defendant was found IST on those charges; the State voluntarily dismissed the misdemeanor charges shortly before the court would have been required to dismiss them because of the passage of time; the State simultaneously recharged the defendant with a felony and crime of violence; and the defendant was found IST on the new charges. Under § 3-107(a)(1), the State would generally have five years to restore the defendant to competence. But do the five years run from the date when the defendant was found to be IST on the misdemeanor charges, which the State dismissed? Or do the five years run from the date when the defendant was found to be IST on the new charges of a felony or crime of violence?

In this case, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County concluded that the five years ran from the date when the defendant was found IST on the felony or crime of violence charges. Extrapolating from the statute and the cases interpreting it, we agree. Consequently, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Our decision does not, however, relieve the court of its obligation to inquire into whether the defendant is unlikely to become competent in the foreseeable future and must be civilly committed to an inpatient facility designated by the Department of Health. See CP § 3-106(e)(1).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Initial Charges Against Hoggle in District Court

Catherine Hoggle is the mother of Sarah Hoggle and Jacob Hoggle. According to the State, the two children were last seen in the care of their mother on September 7, 2014. At that time, Sarah was five years old, and Jacob was three years old.

Hoggle was arrested three days after the children disappeared. Officers interrogated her for several hours, but they did not learn the location of the children.

Within one week of the arrest, the State filed a series of charging documents against Hoggle in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County. First, the State charged her with two counts of neglect of a minor. Next, the State charged her with one count of obstruction of justice. Finally, the State charged her with two counts of abduction or unlawful detention of a child by a relative.

An evaluator from the Health Department examined Hoggle, who had a history of schizophrenia. The evaluator concluded that Hoggle was incompetent to stand trial at that time.

On January 10, 2015, the district court found that Hoggle was incompetent to stand trial and ordered that she be committed at Clifton T. Perkins Hospital. As required by statute, the district court periodically reviewed the issue of Hoggle's competency. On nine occasions from the date of commitment until September 2017, the district court found that Hoggle remained incompetent and that she continued to meet the criteria for commitment.

At a separate proceeding in March 2016, about 18 months after the initiation of the misdemeanor case in the district court, a prosecutor informed the court that the State planned to charge Hoggle with the murders of her two children. The prosecutor said that the State had decided to delay the indictment so that the grand jury might be available, if needed, to investigate the disappearance of the two children. According to the prosecutor, once the State obtained an indictment, the State would no longer be able to use the grand jury as an investigative entity.

B. Murder Charges in Circuit Court

On September 14, 2017, the State dismissed all charges against Hoggle in district court by entering a nolle prosequi.¹ On the same day, the State obtained an indictment charging her in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County with first-degree murder of Sarah Hoggle and first-degree murder of Jacob Hoggle.

The circuit court issued an arrest warrant in connection with the indictment. Hoggle was transferred from Clifton T. Perkins Hospital to the Montgomery County Detention Center for processing. Two days later, the circuit court ordered that Hoggle be held without bond and committed temporarily to the Department of Health for an inpatient evaluation of her competency to stand trial.

Danielle R. Robinson, M.D., submitted a competency evaluation report on behalf of the Department. Dr. Robinson reported that Hoggle's diagnosis of schizophrenia had not changed since prior evaluations in connection with the district court charges. Although Hoggle was taking antipsychotic medications in compliance with her treatment regimen, Dr. Robinson stated that she "continue[d] to demonstrate prominent negative symptoms of Schizophrenia," including "paranoi[a]" and "impoverished and tangential thinking." Although Hoggle "underst[ood] the nature and object of the proceedings against her," Dr. Robinson concluded that she was "unable to assist in her own defense" and therefore that she was incompetent to stand trial. "In light of the allegations against her and chronic psychotic symptoms," Dr. Robinson added that Hoggle was "dangerous and in need of continued inpatient hospitalization."

On December 1, 2017, the circuit court found that Hoggle was incompetent to stand trial on the murder charges against her. The court further found that Hoggle, by reason of a mental disorder, was a danger to herself or to others. Based on those findings, the court committed her to the Department of Health.

Dr. Robinson submitted five competency evaluation reports between December 2017 and August 2019. In each report, Dr. Robinson opined that Hoggle remained incompetent to stand trial, that she remained dangerous because of a mental disorder, and that there was a significant possibility that she might become competent to stand trial in the foreseeable future as the treatment team continued to adjust her medication regimen. Adopting those conclusions, the circuit court ordered the continuation of Hoggle's commitment.

In early 2019, the State moved for an order authorizing an evaluation of Hoggle by a psychiatrist of the State's choosing. The State selected Christiana Tellefsen, M.D., to undertake the evaluation. The circuit court granted the motion over opposition from the defense.

In a report dated August 6, 2019, Dr. Tellefsen concluded that Hoggle remained incompetent to stand trial and that she remained dangerous because of a mental disorder. Dr. Tellefsen declined to give an opinion at that time on the possibility that Hoggle might be restored to competency. Dr. Tellefsen noted that Hoggle had recently started a trial of Clozapine, "an antipsychotic medication that is generally considered to be a ‘last resort’ " because of its "wide variety of potentially severe side effects." Dr. Tellefsen also noted that Hoggle had shown "modest improvement" in the early stages of the medication trial and that the results should be known within a few months.

C. Motion to Dismiss Under § 3-107 of the Criminal Procedure Article

On January 10, 2020, five years to the day after she had been found IST on the misdemeanor charges in district court, Hoggle moved for dismissal of the murder charges under CP § 3-107.

As previously stated, § 3-107(a)(1) generally requires the court to "dismiss the charge against a defendant found incompetent to stand trial ... when charged with a felony or crime of violence ... after the lesser of the expiration of 5 years or the maximum sentence for the most serious offense charged[.]" When a defendant is charged with an offense other than a felony or crime of violence, the statute generally requires ...