REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

No. 345
September Term, 2013

_________________________
IN RE: CRISTIAN A.

_________________________
Hotten, Nazarian, Eyler, James R. (Retired, Specially Assigned),

JJ.

_________________________ Opinion by Nazarian, J.

_________________________
Filed: August 29, 20141

Cristian A. 1 appeals the decision of the Circuit C ourt for Montgomery County, sitting as a juvenile court, to deny his motion to dismiss

. The S tate charged Cristian with multiple counts, including second

- degree assault and resisting and i nterfering with arrest , after an altercation with a police officer

. Cristian moved to dismiss the State ’s c omplaint as untimely , a nd the court denied the motion. B ecause an intake officer proper ly authorized the filing of a delinquency petition, and because the circuit court correctly found that Cristian has not proven that the State’s delay in filing the complaint caused h im actual prejudice, we affirm

. I. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2012, shortly after Cristian’s seventeenth birthday, his younger brother Ricardo was involved in a fight at a McDonald’s in Silver Spring. Cristian was not implicated in the altercation and was not there when it o c curred

. Detective Jeffrey Bunge of the Montgomery County Police saw the fighting from the pol ice st ation across the street. He witnessed Ricardo punching another individual and began to approach the scene. The fight broke up as Detective Bunge arrived and the participants fled, including Ricardo

. Detective Bunge and Officer Daniel Sassi found Ricardo a pproximately fifteen minutes later

. They pursued him , and Detective Bunge eventually stopped him

. Detective Bunge identified himself, drew his gun, and told Ricardo to get on the ground

. Ricardo complied and as Detective Bunge began to put him in handcuffs , Cristian arrived at the

1 We have adopted the appellant’s spelling of “Cristian,” although appellees refer to him as “Christian.”2

scene . Cristian had heard that his brother was involved in a fight and had come looking for
him

. Cristian ran toward Detective Bunge and Ricardo yelling, “That’s my brother, that’s my brother , leave him alone .” Detective Bunge an d Corporal Tony Galladora, who had come to assist the other officers, told Cristian to stop , but he continued to approach his brother and Detective Bunge

. Corporal Galladora stopped Cristian and brought him to the ground

. A ccording to the testimony of Corporal Galladora and Officer Jeffrey Rea , Cristian got back up, assumed a fighting stance, and said, “What’s up? What’s up?” Officer Rea, who was standing behind Cristian, subdued him with a Taser and then arrested him

. The State filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) with the Department of Juvenile Services (“DJS”) on November 15, 2012, twenty days after Cristian’s arrest on October 26. 2 A juvenile intake officer (the “Intake O fficer”) reviewed the Complaint that day and autho rized the filing of a formal delinquency petition (the “Petition”) without conducting an intake interview with Cristian

. As luck would have it, Cristian was arrested for first

- degree assault on that same day, November 15, 2012 , in an unrelated incident (th e “assault action”), al though these charges were nol prossed on January 11, 2013. The Intake O fficer determined in the delinquency action that Cristian’s detention in
the assault action would likely last beyond the twent y - five

- day timeline allotted for an intake officer to make a decision on whether to file a petition

. See Md. Code (1974, 2013

2 We discuss below an unrelated action (“the assault action”) against Cristian that has relevance to this appeal

. For clarity, we refer to the charges that are the subject of this appealas the “delinquency charges” and the proceedings that followed as the “delinquency action.”3

Repl. Vol.), § 3

- 8A

- 10(c) of Courts & Judic ial Proceedings Ar ticle (“CJP”). 3 Accordingly, t he Intake O fficer authorized the filing of the Petition i n keeping with CJP § 3

- 8A

10(c) and without conducting an intake interview with Cristian

. The State filed the Petition on December 11, 2012, charging Cristian with second

- degree assault, disorderly conduct, conspiracy to commit disorderly conduct, resisting and interferi ng with arrest, attempting to resist and interfere with arrest, and attempting to obstruct and hinder a police officer. Cristian moved to dismiss on February 13, 2013

. He argued that the State had violated CJP §3

- 8A

- 10(m), which requires la w enforcement o fficers to file the initial complaint with DJS within fifteen days of when a juvenile is brought into custody. 4 The State

3 The statute sets l imits on the amount of time an intake officer has to make a decision after the filing of a complaint :

(c)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, in considering the complaint, the intake officer shall make an inquiry within 25 days as to whether the court has jurisdiction and whether judicial action is in the best interests of the public or the child. CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10(c) (emphasis added).

4 The statute describes the fifteen

- day deadline, but also permits dismissal only under certain circumstances:

(m)(1) Except as provided in pa ragraph (2) of this subsection, within 15 days after a law enforcement officer takes a child into custody under this subtitle the law enforcement officer shall file a complaint with an intake officer. (2) I f a child is referred to a diversion program, the law enforcement officer may file the complaint with an intake officer more than 30 days after but no later than 120 days after the law enforcement officer took the child into custody.4

had filed the Complaint on November 15, 2012, twenty days after Cristian’s arrest on October 26, 2012, and five days late 5 under the statute

. Cristian argued that the State’s delayin filing violated “statutory timeliness” and due process, and “caused [him] actual prejudice,” since he was not provided the opportunity for an intake interview, which might have convinced the Intake O fficer to refrain from authorizing the filing of the Petition

. At an adjudication hearing on February 15, 2013, the circuit court denie d the motion to dismiss, noting that “it’s just too speculative to think that the case would have been not petitioned and ther e’s really no showing of any prejudice to the defense

. So if it was delayed four days or six days, or whatever, I don’t think that’s sufficient in and of itself to dismiss it.” The circuit court found that Cristian was “involved” 6 in attempting to interfe re with arrest and attempting to obstruct and hinder a police officer performing his lawful duties

. At the disposition hearing on March 7, 2013, the court sustained Cristian’s probation pursuant to the recommendation of DJS

. Cristian filed a timely notice of appeal

.

(n) The court may dis miss a petition or a peace order request for failure to comply with this section only if the respondent has demonstrated actual prejudice. CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10 (m)

– (n) (e m phasis added).

5 At the adjudication hearing, counsel for Cristian argued that the delay was five days and later that the delay was six days

. The State concedes that the Complaint was filed late, though it contends that the delay was only four days

.
6 “In juvenile proceedings the more precise term to use when referring to the plea of the respondent is ‘not involved’ [or involved] as opposed to ‘not guilty’ [or guilty].” In re Kevin Eugene C. , 90 Md. App. 85, 87

– 88 n.2 (1992).5 II. DISCUSSION Although the parties have focused largely on whether or when Cristian should have been intervie wed, our analysis, and the Intake O fficer’s ultimate responsibility , revolves around the more fundamental question of whether the officer conduct ed an appropriate investigation of the juvenile’s case before recommend ing that a petition be filed

. Because we are satisfied with the Intake O fficer’s investigation and rationale for deciding not to conduct an intake interview , and because Cristian’s claims of actual prejudice are too attenuated, we affirm. After a juven ile is taken into custody, the S tate may file a complaint with DJS

. The complaint must be filed within fifteen days from the date a juvenile is arrested

. See CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10(m)

. In turn, the intake officer must review the complaint “within 25 days as to whether the court has jurisdiction and whether judicial action is in the best interest s of the public or the child.” CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10(c) (1) . As part of this inquiry, “ it is incumbent upon the intake officer to review all of the evidence reasonably available to him or her

. . . . O rdinarily an intake interview is an essential part of the preliminary review unless the juvenile refuses to participate or is unable to partici pate.” In re Kevin Eugene C. , 90 Md. App. 85, 92 (1992) ( second emphasis added)

. After this investigation , and within the twenty

- five

day time period, the intake officer makes a recommendation to the State’s Attorney and may “[a]uthorize the filing of a petition,” “[p]ropose an informal adjustment of the matter,” or decide not to authorize a petition at all

. CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10(c) (3)(i)

– (iii)

. 7 Violations of CJP

7 The statute describes t he intake officer’s potential courses of action after receiving a complaint and the timeframe for making a decision:6

§ 3

- 8A

- 10 may result in dismissal of a petition , but “ only if the respondent has demonstrated actual prejudice.” CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10(n) (emphasis added). Because Cristian’s claims inc lude a constitutional dimension ( he alleges a viol ation of his due process rights) , we review his contentions against “our own independent constitutional an alysis.” Glover v. State , 368 Md. 211, 220 (2002) (citing State v. Bailey , 319 Md. 392, 415 (1990)) ; s ee also Butler v. State , 214 Md. App. 635, 655 (2013)

. “We perform

a de novo constitutional appraisal in light of the particular facts of the case at hand; in so doing, we accept a lower court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.” Glover , 368 Md. at 221

. Cristian argues that the State’s failure to file a timely complaint under CJP § 3

- 8A

10(m) caused him actual prejudice. 8 He contends that had the State filed the Complaint

Subject to the provisions of § 3

- 8A

- 10.1 of this subtitle, in accordance with this section, the intake officer may, after such inquiry and within 25 days of receiving the complaint: (i) Authorize the filing of a petition or a peace order request or both; (ii) Propose an informal adjustment of the matter; or (iii) Refuse authorization to file a petition or a peace order request or both.
CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10(c)(3).

8 Cristian phrases the question presented as follows:

Did the [Circuit Court for Montgomery County] err in denying [Cristian’s] motion to dismiss where the State failed to comply with the time requirements of § 3

- 8A

- 10 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article?7

within the statute’s timeframe , he could have participated in an intake interview and this interview might have convinced the Intake O fficer not to authorize the filing of the Petition

. The Intake Officer reviewed the b elatedly

- submitted Complaint and decided to authorize the filing of the Petition without interview ing Cristian

. The I ntake O fficer anticipated that Cristian couldn’t participate in an interview , especially given the twenty

- five

day timeframe allotted for a decision on whether or not to file a petition, because of Cristian’s arrest, which the officer believed would result in a detention

. See CJP § 3

- 8A

10(c)(3) ; s ee also Kevin Eugene C. , 90 Md. App. at 91

- 92

. Put differently, the I ntake O fficer assume d Crist ian would be unavailable for an interview since he had been arrested. Cristian contends that he was in fact available for an intake interview up until his arrest on November 15, 2012. 9 He claims he was prejudiced by the delay in filing the
C omplaint, which deprived him of an interview , because there was “at least a reasonable possibility that a delinquency petition would not have been filed had an intake hearing been conducted.” Cristian claims that in an intake interview , “ he would have [had] the op por-

9 Cristian speculates about both the meeting taking place and what he believes its outcome could have been:

[He] was not arrested in the adult case (in which the charge s were later nol prossed ) until the date the complai nt in the juvenile case was filed, November 15, 2012

. Prior to that date,[Cristian], who was released to his mother following the incident on October 26, could have met with an intake officer, who, in turn, could have proposed an informal adjustment or re fused to authorize the filing of a petition

. (Emphasis added

. )8

tunity to persuade the [ Intake Officer] to pursue an informal adjustment or deny authorization for the filing of a petition.” He points to several mitigating factors that he would have discussed during the intake interview , including his abusive upbrin ging and his attempts to protect his younger brother, and that he contends may have convinced the Intake O fficer
not to file a petition

. Cristian admits, however, that “ there is no guarantee that the [Intake Officer] would have taken a different course had there been an opportunity for an intake hearing

. ” Picking up on this concession , the State claims that Cristian has “failed to establish actual prejudice.” The State contends that Cristian was at fault for his inability to participate in an intake he aring, given the pending assault action , and that the I ntake O fficer already “was aware of all the circumstances surrounding [Cristian’s] alleged involvement in the alleged delinquent act, including his upbringing , his family situation, his history in the juvenile system, and his new felony assault charges.”
We conclude that the Intake O fficer in this case met his responsibility to review Cristian’s case, even though he did not conduct an interview, and we agree with the State that Cristian has failed to establish actual prejudice

. First , an intake officer’s responsibility
is to “review fully the case so as to determine whether it would be more appropriately handled through informal adjustment or even to recommend that no further action be taken.” In re Steven B. , 84 Md. App. 1, 8 (1990)

. An intake interview may be a part of this review process, but the core requirement is that the officer conduct a thorough inves tigation of the juvenile’s case

.9

The determination of whether dismissal of a petition is warranted in the absence of an intake interview depends on w hether “under the circumstances . . . an intake interview is an indispensable part of the mandated preliminary inquiry, or whether the goals and objectives of the preliminary inquiry can be accomp lished absent such an interview.” Kevin Eugene C. , 90 Md. App. at 89

. “When faced with a situation where an interview with the child was not held, the court should inquire as to the reason and, if not satisfied with the intake officer’s explanation, may t ake such action as it believes appropriate under the circumstances, including dismissal of the petition.” Id. at 92

. We have held that an intake interview is not required if the “juvenile refuses to participate or is unable to participate,” and have no ted that dismissal is not “a necessary, automatic sanction that must be applied in every case where an intake interview was not held.” Id. at 93

. But “the purpose of Maryland’s juvenile statute [ to rehabilitate ] is not ordinarily best served by dismissal of the proceedings , ” In re Keith W. , 310 Md. 99, 106 (1987) , and “[o]nly the most extraordinary and egregious circumstances should be allowed to dictate di smissal as the sanction for [a] violation of a procedural rule.” Id. at 10 9 ; s ee also In re Timothy C. , 376 Md. 414, 434

– 435 (2003)

. D ismissal is appropriate if the State deliberately file s a petition before an intake interview is conducted and without taking into account input from the J uvenile Services Administration

. State v. Patrick A. , 312 Md. 482, 492

– 93 (1988)

. Similarly, a policy that “ automatically recommend [s] ” that the State file a petition , regardless of intake interviews , circumvents the statutory purpose

. Steven B. , 84 Md. App. at 8 (affirming dismissal of petition s ) ; s ee also In re Keith G. , 325 Md. 538, 546 (1992) ( reversing dismissal and distinguishing Patrick A. , 312 Md. 482 and Steven B. , 8410

Md. App. 1, respectively)

. Overall, though, the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile statutes may well be better served by e rring on the side of engagement rather than reflexive procedural dismissal :

[T]he foremost consideration in the disposition of a juvenile proceeding should be a course of treatment and rehabilitation best suited to promote the full grow th and development o f the child

. . . . [T] he judge must keep in mind the overriding purpose of the juvenile statute along with the fact that this purposewill ordinarily not be served by dismissal of the juvenile proceeding. Keith W. , 310 Md. at 109 (affirming lower court’s refusal to dismiss a petition based on a violation of Maryland Rule 11

- 114, which prescribes the timing requirements for adjudicatory hearings)

. This case present s no procedural failing or inappropriate policy that justified dismissal

. T he State did not file the P etition in Cristian’s case until after the Intake Officer investigated the allegations and made a r ecommendation to proceed

. The I ntake O fficer did not conduct an intake interview , but only because he believed Cristian would be u navailable due to the pending charges in the assault action

. T his case does not present an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting dismissal of the Petition simply because an intake interview was not conducted

. See Keith W. , 310 Md. at 109

. To the contrary , the record reveals that Cristian had a lengthy history with DJS leading up to this incident , 10 and the

10 Before the incidents o f October 26, 2012, Cristian had been put in the care of his mother under numerous conditions including “[being] placed on a Global Positioning System (GPS) and abid[ ing] by all conditions,” and “[s]ubmit[ting] to random urinalysis.” Cristian subsequently “had two alcohol citations” and “was required to complete a Screeni ng and Assessment Services for C hildren and Adolescents (SASCA).” He had also been participating i n a drug treatment program as of October 1, 2012.11

I ntake O fficer likely was already aware of Cristian’s history and the circumstances surrounding this particular arrest

. The Intake Officer readily could conclude from this record that Cristian needed the services DJS could provide him

. 11 His decision to authorize the Petition without an intake interview continued DJS’s engagement with him, and th e circuit court judge ultimately found that Cristian “is still

. . . amenable to services” and properly continued Cristian’s probation, pursuant to DJS’s recommendation. Second , even if Cristian was entitled to an intake interview and could have participate d in one, the re is no evidence that the five

- day dela y in the initial filing of the Complaint caused him actual prejudice

. Under CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10(n), a court “may dismiss a petition or a peace order request for failure to comply with this secti on[, in this case filing the
C omplaint beyond the fifteen

- day window ,] only if the respondent has demonstrated actual prejudice. ” CJP § 3

- 8A

- 10(n) (emphasis added). Although the statute does not define “actual prejudice , ” we look to the related area of speedy trial violations in criminal prosecutions

. 12 In Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court established four factors, including prejudice, that we analyze to

11 In addition to Cristian’s run

- ins with the law documented in Note 1 0 , in November 2013 , Cristian also faced the adult charges for first

- degree assault ( later nol prossed ) that the Intake Officer referen ced here

. In March 2013, Cristian was again arrested on first

- degree assault charges , as well as conspiracy and participation in a criminal gang

. On April 30, 2013, DJS filed a request for a statutory emergency hearing because Cristian’s whereabouts were unknown

.
12 This analysis is consistent with Cristian’s arguments below , in which he invoked Boone v. State , 55 Md. App. 663 (1983) , which in turn cites the three factors for establishing prejudice from Brady v. State , 291 Md. 261, 267 (1981)

. Boone, 55 M d. App. at 670; se e also Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 532 (1972).12

determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated

. Id. at 530

. Within the prejudice analysis, the Court indicated three “interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect,” namely: “(i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impa ired.” Id. at 532 ; se e also State v. Bailey , 319 Md. 392, 415 (1990) (noting that “ in the determination of the speedy trial question, each case rests on its own facts[, and the] determination must be made upon an overall view of the circumstances peculiar to each particular case, keeping in mind not only the rights of the defendant but also the interests of society.” ) ; Boone , 55 Md. App. 663, 670 (1983) ; Butler v. State , 214 Md. App. 635, 655 (2013)

. The Court also recognized that out of these interests, the defendant’s need to buil d a strong case is paramount because an impaired defense could threaten “the fairness of the entire system.” Barker , 407 U.S. at 532 ; se e also Wilson v.
State , 148 Md. App. 601, 639 (2002) ( “ The most importan t factor establishi ng prejudice .

. . is the inability to prepare one’s defense.”)

. Maryland courts have adopted the Barker test in both cr iminal and juvenile proceedings

. See, e.g. , In re Thomas J. , 372 Md. 50, 77 (2002); Wilson , 148 Md. App. at 639

. Cristian does not arg ue that he has faced oppressive pretrial incarceration , and he conceded that the five

- day delay in the filing of the C omplaint was “not an impairment to [his] defense.” He did contend at the adjudicatory hearing that waiting for th e State to file the C omplaint caused him “anxiety and nervousness,” though he does not mention this point in his brief

. H is primary argument is that had he had an opportunity to par ticipate in13

an intake hearing, he might have persuaded the I ntake Officer not to recommend the P etition at all

. Beyond hopefulness or speculation, nothing in the record supports this argument and, as we discussed above, there is ample evidence to support the Intake Officer’s decision
to recommend the Petition

. Cristian has admitted that he was prejud iced only if the Intake
O fficer would not have submitted the Petition after conducting an intake hearing with him , and t he link between what could have happened and actual prejudice is too hypothetical and attenuated

. JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURTFOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT .