Md. Dep't of Health v. Myers

310 A.3d 1200

260 Md.App. 565

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

v.Shawn Orland MYERS, Jr., et al

Nos. 1901, 2074, 2150, 2162, 2163, 2280, 2281, 2283, 2284, 2286, 2287, 2288, 2289, 2290, Sept. Term, 2022

Appellate Court of Maryland.

February 29, 2024

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Case Nos. C-02-CR-17-001144, C-02-CR-21-001095, 122118030, 122301016, 122279008, 121175003, 122118017-018, 122143007, 121084024, 122025004, 822321005, 119217014, 119217016, 822178008, 122153030, 116356007, 121280006, Alison L. Asti & Gale E. Rasin, Judge.

Argued by Morgan Clipp, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD) on brief, for Appellant.

Argued by Michael T. Torres, Asst. Public Defender (Natasha M. Dartigue, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD) on brief, for Appellee.

Argued before: Wells, C.J., Graeff, Robert N. McDonald (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Graeff, J.

This case involves what appears to be a recurring problem, where individuals who have committed a crime and been found incompetent to stand trial ("IST") and dangerous due to a mental disorder are committed to a mental health facility designated by the Maryland Department of Health (the "Department"), but they remain in detention centers due to the Department’s inability to place them in designated health care facilities within the 10-day time limit required by statute. The Maryland appellate courts previously have addressed claims relating to this problem. See Powell v. Md. Dep’t of Health, 455 Md. 520, 168 A.3d 857 (2017); State v. Crawford, 239 Md. App. 84, 119, 196 A.3d 1 (2018).

In this consolidated appeal, the Department, appellant, challenges 14 separate orders that were issued due to its failure to timely admit defendants who had been found IST and dangerous to a psychiatric facility. Two orders were issued by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which found the Department, and several of its officials, in constructive civil contempt for the failure to comply with court orders to admit Shawn Orland Myers, Jr., and Zachary Murphy, appellees, respectively, to a psychiatric facility operated by the Department within the 10-day time frame required by statute. The court imposed sanctions for contempt, as well as statutorily-authorized sanctions.

The Department also challenges 12 orders issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, ordering it to reimburse the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("DPSCS") for operating costs at the rate of $166 per day for its failure to admit 12 individuals (appellees or "Baltimore City Defendants"), who had been found to be IST and dangerous and committed to a Department facility. The court found that DPSCS was entitled to reimbursement because the Department did not admit the Baltimore City Defendants to a Department facility within the 10-day period required by statute, and appellees remained in jail.

On appeal, appellant presents the following questions, which we have rephrased slightly, for this Court’s review:

1. Did the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County lack jurisdiction, improperly hold the Department in contempt, and impose sanctions where proper service was not effected?

2. Did the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County abuse its discretion in finding the Department in constructive civil contempt and imposing sanctions?

3. Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City commit multiple abuses of discretion when, without giving the Department notice, the opportunity to offer opposition, or the opportunity to offer evidence that its orders would compel compliance, the court ordered the Department to reimburse costs?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall reverse in part, affirm in part, and vacate in part, the judgments of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, and we shall reverse the judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

COMPETENCY AND COMMITMENT PROCEDURES

[1–3] We begin by summarizing the procedures governing competency evaluations and commitment orders. The State may not proceed with a criminal prosecution "against a defendant who is not competent to stand trial." Powell, 455 Md. at 527, 168 A.3d 857. A defendant found incompetent to stand trial may not be detained "unless the government is taking steps to provide treatment to restore the defendant to competence or to have the defendant civilly committed." Id. The trial court determines "whether a defendant is competent, is dangerous to self or others, and, if incompetent, has the potential to be restored to competence." Id. As we previously explained:

A person is "not competent to stand trial" if he or she is unable "(1) to understand the nature or object of the proceeding; or (2) to assist in one’s defense " Md. Code (2017 Supp.), § 3-101(f) of the Criminal Procedure Article ("CP"); State v. Dixon, 230 Md. App. 273, 282, 146 A.3d 1223 (2016). When a defendant "appears … to be incompetent," the court "shall determine, on evidence presented on the record," whether the defendant is "incompetent to standtrial" ("IST"). CP § 3-104. To aid in this determination, a court may "order the [Department] to examine the defendant," and it "shall set … the conditions under which the examination is to be made." CP § 3-105(a).

A defendant may be "confined in a correctional facility until the [Department] can conduct the [competency] examination." CP § 3-105(c)(1). If, however, "the court finds that, because of the apparent severity of the mental disorder …, a defendant in custody would be endangered by confinement in a correction facility," the court may order that the Department confine the defendant at a "medical facility that the [Department] designates as appropriate" or "immediately conduct a competency examination of the defendant by a community forensic screening program or other agency that the [Department] finds appropriate " CP § 3-105[c](2)(i). See Dixon, 230 Md. App. at 285–87, 146 A.3d [at 1229–30] (Where a court determines that a defendant needs to be confined in a psychiatric facility for his own safety pending a competency evaluation, it may order that the Department admit the defendant to such a facility.). Accord Powell, 455 Md. at 529, 168 A.3d [at 863] (A trial court is "charged with determining whether a defendant is in fact incompetent to stand trial and, if so, what to do about it.").

Crawford, 239 Md. App. at 91–92, 196 A.3d 1.

Section 3-106(c) of the Criminal Procedure Article governs the process for committing a defendant to one of the Department’s designated health care facilities.¹ Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure ("CP") § 3-106(c) (2023 Supp.). It provides, in relevant part:

(1) If, after a hearing, the court finds that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial and, because of mental retardation or a mental disorder, is a danger to self or the person or property of another, the court shall order the defendant committed to the facility that the Health Department designates until the court finds that:

1. the defendant no longer is incompetent to stand trial;

2. the defendant no longer is, because of mental retardation or a mental disorder, a danger to self or the person or property of others; or

3. there is not a substantial likelihood that the defendant will become competent to stand trial in the foreseeable future.

In Powell, 455 Md. at 542–47, 168 A.3d 857, the Department failed to admit the appellants to a psychiatric hospital by the deadline set by the court in its commitment order. The Supreme Court held that the Department did not violate CP § 3-106 by failing to admit a criminal defendant by a deadline set in a commitment order because nothing in the statute "sets a deadline for admission, or authorizes the court to set one " Id. at 543, 168 A.3d 857.

In response to this decision, the General Assembly added a deadline for admission, See 2018 Md. Laws Ch. 189 (S.B. 233). The preamble to Senate Bill 233 explained the reasons for the deadline as follows: (1) "The unreasonable detention of defendants found incompetent to stand trial or not criminally responsible outside a treatment facility is a serious public safety risk and a violation of the U.S. Constitution;" (2) "Keeping potentially dangerous, seriously mentally ill defendants from treatment exacerbates their problems and violates their right to due process;" (3) "The crisis of delayed treatment for seriously mentally ill and incompetent defendants in Maryland has been foreseeable for many years and well-documented, facilitated by a steady reduction in capacity and staff of State hospitals while the demand for forensic beds has remained constant;" and (4) "Seriously mentally ill and incompetent defendants will continue to be unlawfully housed in detention centers unless the courts have authority to impose deadlines to enforce court orders." Id.

Effective October 1, 2018, CP § 3-106(c) now provides:

(2) If the court commits a defendant to the Health Department under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Health Department shall:

(i) admit the defendant to a designated health care facility as soon as possible, but not later than 10 business days after the Health Department receives the order of commitment; and

(ii) notify the court of the date on which the defendant was admitted to the designated health care facility.

* * *

(4) If the Health Department fails to admit a defendant to a designated health care facility within the time period specified in paragraph (2)(i) of this subsection, the court may impose any sanction reasonably designed to compel compliance, including requiring the Health Department to reimburse a detention facility for expenses and costs incurred in retaining the defendant beyond the time period specified in paragraph (2)(i) of this subsection at the daily rate specified in § 9-402(b) of the Correctional Services Article.²

§ 3-106(c) (emphasis added).

After a defendant is committed to a Department facility, the court is required to hold an annual hearing to determine if...