Opinion ID: 2086297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Craft v. State

Text: On May 11, 1993, the Circuit Court for Cecil County ordered that Lawrence L. Craft pay $73.00 per week for the support of his child, Michael Craft. Almost four years later, on February 5, 1997, a petition for civil contempt and a separate petition for criminal contempt were simultaneously filed against Lawrence Craft in the Circuit Court for Cecil County. Each petition alleged that Craft had not complied with the 1993 support order and that, as of February 5, 1997, he was in arrears in the amount of $4610.00. When the case was called for trial on February 19, 1997, the trial judge initially announced that punishment is limited to 179 days. The assistant public defender representing Craft then demand[ed] a jury trial for my client, and the trial judge denied the demand. Next, the following colloquy occurred: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Are we proceeding civilly or criminally? THE COURT: Criminally.    THE COURT: No, excuse me. We are proceeding both. We can do these combined under the new rules.[ [3] ] [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Let me proffer to the Court then that my client has been in a situation where he cannot work to the level he was working before. He was a truck driver and welder, lost his license due to a series of DUIs, is not able to work, and is doing telemarketing out of his basement. Actually, he is renting a room in a basement and doing telemarketing from there, because he can't drive to work. He doesn't have a license and he is not able to get better employment. So he is under-employed at this point. He has done almost everything he can or almost everything he has to do to get a license back. And I have a series of copies of documents to show to the Court that he has been doing everything.    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He doesn't want to deny his children ... support. I mean, he's willing to pay the support. He is willing to pay the arrears; it's just a matter of not having present ability to pay. He lost his job in March or April of 1996, made a last payment in June `96. THE COURT: Lost job March or April 1996. Last payment June of `96. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That's according to Mr. Deruggiero[, the representative of the Cecil County Child Support Enforcement Agency]. I have some documents which support this. We are prepared to put on testimony that he has been going to AA. First of all, he went through the program in Delaware City. Then ... in Wilmington. That's the letter the court has. I'll explain those in a moment. THE COURT: All right. Go ahead Mr. Deruggiero.[ [4] ] MR. DERUGGIERO: Your Honor, basically what you said the last payment was June the 6th 1996. His current arrears are $4,726. The order is $73 a week. Now, he did lose his job in April of `96. We came across a new address on him in January, that's what brought the case back to court because we had a bad address on him and we found a new one and did the summons for today. He did work at Dana Rail Car in December.... THE COURT: Where did he work? He worked where? MR. DERUGGIERO: Dana Rail Car. Worked there about a year, from what I can see. THE COURT: In January of `96? MR. DERUGGIERO: No, sir.    He left there in December of `95. And then he was summoned to court for April of `96. He says [that he was] working as a subcontractor with his cousin laying carpet. [He] will continue to make the $91 a week payments. THE COURT: Worked as a subcontractor. MR. DERUGGIERO: Subcontractor with his cousin as a carpet layer which he continuedhe made a lump sum payment of $274. Continue to make the $91 a week payments. I took him off the court list on April the 24th based on that information. THE COURT: Then what happened? MR. DERUGGIERO: We apparently had lost contact with him. We had a bad address, unable to locate him. Then in January we did get a new address and he was resummonsed for court. Then he came into my office telling me about his doing the telemarketing where he gets one dollar for each pick up if the person agrees to leave something out for the group, he gets a dollar for every pick up that's made. Told me he paid $200 a month rent. Going to the AA and then his case was brought here for court. THE COURT: Any questions for Mr. Deruggiero? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor. The court then asked defense counsel, What do you want to tell us? Counsel responded: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, I mean, he would testify that he has not been able to work to full capacity since he lost his driver's license. He was a truck driver and welder, worked at companies like Dana Rail Car Company as I believe making, I think you were making $14 an hour. That was the money he was making when this occurred. Then with the DWI, he lost his license. He had reported to the 28-day program and quite frankly sounds like he worked very hard at maintaining his sobriety. A neighbor takes him to AA. He has remained alcohol free. And the letter from the NET counseling ... says that all urinalysis have been clear.... [O]nce he gets his license back, he will be able to get employment for instance with this contracting service or something else to where he did before and he be at a level where he can pay the full amount. Presently THE COURT: How come he hasn't paid anything since June? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, he pays $75 a week for this room in the basement. He makes $80 to $100 a week. He uses the rest to eat. He has no hobbies. He has no cable. His television and telephone usage are included in his rent. The trial judge suggested that Craft could get a job near his residence and probably make $240 a week working at one of the fast food places. The judge next asked, Does he have any assets? Lawrence Craft himself answered: No, sir. Just clothes, TV and a small stereo, basically. The court then asked whether Craft wanted to testify, and defense counsel replied: No. Nothing further. Defense counsel proceeded to argue that Craft at no time had the ability to pay more than he did, and that, therefore, he had not willfully violated the support order. Thereafter, the trial court concluded: Well, I'll grant you he doesn't have the ability to pay civilly but I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty of criminal contempt. He just hasn't done anything since 6/6/96 as far as paying for the children. He has had a job that is basically less than minimum wage.    He had a duty to go out and do something and he didn't do anything. So guilty of criminal contempt. The Court sentenced Craft to 179 days in the Cecil County Detention Center with credit for the 14 days served between February 5 and February 19, 1997. The Court on its own motion filed a motion for reduction of sentence, and stated: If you pay $1,500, I'll reduce sentence to time served. Craft immediately noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. A few days later, on February 25, 1997, he paid $1,500.00, and the circuit court ordered that he be released from jail. The Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion, affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. The intermediate appellate court held that Craft was not entitled to a jury trial. It further held that Craft had waived his complaint about being convicted without any sworn testimony because his counsel failed to object on this ground and because his own counsel was the first to proceed by proffer. Treating the unsworn statements of the agency representative and defense counsel as evidence, the Court of Special Appeals held that these statements and the documentation were sufficient to support the court's finding of criminal contempt. Thereafter, this Court granted Craft's petition for a writ of certiorari. Craft v. State, 348 Md. 334, 703 A.2d 1265 (1998). Craft argues that, as a matter of Maryland law, he was entitled to a jury trial, that he should not have been convicted on the basis of unsworn statements, and that, even treating the unsworn statements as evidence, such evidence was insufficient to convict him of criminal contempt.