Court Opinion

ID: 9692189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:46:09.745937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:32.761559
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
WILNER, J.
I concur in the Court’s Opinion and write separately only to express a caveat that has not been raised or addressed in this case.
As the Court points out, we made clear in Grey v. Allstate, 363 Md. 445, 769 A.2d 891 (2001) that an order of restitution entered pursuant to former Maryland Code, Art. 27, § 807 (current Crim. Proc. Article, § 11-603) is a criminal penalty, even though it could be enforced in the manner of a civil judgment. Under Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 107 S.Ct. 353, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986), such an order of restitution, when treated as a criminal penalty, is not dischargeable in bankruptcy under the current Bankruptcy Code.
Garnett’s point is that, because she was found not criminally responsible, the order of restitution cannot be regarded as a criminal sanction. The Maryland Legislature seems to have decreed otherwise. In Crim. Proc. Art. § ll-603(a), it has authorized a court to order a “defendant” to make restitution, *482“in addition to any other penalty for the commission of a crime” if, as a direct result of the crime, the victim has suffered certain enumerated kinds of losses. In § ll-601(e), it has defined “defendant” as including a person “who has been found guilty of a crime, even if the defendant has been found not criminally responsible.” That is the basis for the Court’s conclusion that the order of restitution in this case retains its status as a criminal penalty. The Legislature has apparently authorized a court to order a not criminally responsible defendant to pay restitution.
Garnett has not challenged the validity of the statutory construct that permits a court to enter a criminal penalty against someone who has been found not criminally responsible. That authorization is certainly inconsistent with the conclusion we reached in Pouncey v. State, 297 Md. 264, 269, 465 A.2d 475, 478 (1983), however, that a finding of not criminally responsible relieves the defendant of liability for punishment under the criminal law and that “[n]o criminal sentence may ever be entered on the guilty verdict....” Indeed, imposition of a criminal penalty upon a person found not criminally responsible would raise serious Constitutional issues. Because those issues have not been raised in this case, the Court has not considered them. They most certainly do lurk, however.