Court Opinion

ID: 9756754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:51:17.271173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:29.203426
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
GREENE, J.,
which BELL, C.J., Joins.
The State failed to bring the case against Huntley to trial within the 180-day period as mandated by State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310, 318, 403 A.2d 356, 360 (1979). As a result, the Circuit Court for Wicomico County was correct in dismissing the criminal charges. Here the State’s action in nol prosing the indictment on the 179th day of the Hicks1 period and reindicting Huntley on the same charges, after the Hicks period had expired, circumvented the requirements of Md. Code (2001, 2008 Repl.Vol.), § 6-103(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article2 and Md. Rule 4-271(a)(1).3 This conclusion is *304consistent with our holdings in Curley v. State, 299 Md. 449, 474 A.2d 502 (1984), and State v. Price, 385 Md. 261, 868 A.2d 252 (2005), and the Court of Special Appeals’ holdings in Ross v. State, 117 Md.App. 357, 700 A.2d 282 (1997), and Alther v. State, 157 Md.App. 316, 850 A.2d 1211 (2004).
Specifically, Huntley was indicted on August 27, 2007. His initial appearance in the Circuit Court was on September 6, 2007. Accordingly, the 180-day time period imposed under § 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article and Md. Rule 4-271 would expire on March 4, 2008. On March 3, 2008, the trial date, the State moved to amend the indictment to change the date of the offenses from the period September 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, to the period April 1, 2003, through July 31, 2005. Huntley’s attorney objected to the proposed amendment on the grounds that his trial preparation was based upon the specific dates alleged in the indictment and that to allow the amendment under the circumstances would prejudice his defense of Huntley. The attorney asserted further that the motivation for the State’s decision to amend the dates alleged in the charging document was due to the potential testimony from Huntley’s witnesses. According to the attorney, “the State became aware that these [offenses] *305could not have occurred during the timeframe that they alleged.” Thus, the attorney deduced that “now they have figured up another timeframe.”
It was the State’s position, at the motion hearing, that if the court denied the motion to amend the indictment, the State would not be prepared to proceed to trial on March 3, 2008, and would therefore nol pros the charges. In response, Judge Beckstead, the trial judge, pointed out that the proposed amendment would not necessarily change the character of the offenses alleged. In reliance upon Md. Rule 4-204, the trial judge stated that as a result of “a motion of a party or on its own initiative the [cjourt may at any time before verdict permit a charging document to be amended.” The judge further suggested that the exception to the general rule is that “if the amendment changes the character of the offense charged, the consent of the parties is required.” In addition, Judge Beckstead expressed concern that the timing of the State’s request to amend the indictment would implicate the Hicks rule. Therefore, based upon her comments, Judge Beckstead apparently did not want to make a ruling that would unnecessarily cause the trial to be postponed. In the exercise of her discretion, Judge Beckstead denied the State’s motion to amend the indictment. She explained:
This case was previously called earlier today, case 07-0833. The State had made a motion to amend the charging document, and the Court has heard from the State and defense as to the reasons for the amendment and as to the prejudice that would result. In exercising my discretion, I’m going to deny the request for the amendment. It is, in essence, a completely redesigned charging document. He’s been held on these charges as well as other charges. We’re now at 180 days. I am going to go ahead and deny your request to amend the charging document.
In response, the State informed the court that it would “nol pros ... and ... re-indict Mr. Huntley.” Subsequently, on March 24, 2008, Huntley was indicted again, on the same charges, but the date of the alleged offenses was changed to the period April 1, 2003, through July 31, 2005. Thereafter, *306Huntley moved to dismiss the new indictment pursuant to Rule 4-271.
At the motion hearing on Huntley’s motion to dismiss the indictment, Judge Jackson granted Huntley’s request. Huntley argued that the State was not prepared to go forward with trial on March 3, 2008, and the lack of adequate preparation was the State’s reason for nol prossing the charges one day before Hicks expired. Thereafter, according to Huntley, approximately three weeks after entering the nol pros, the State re-indicted Huntley on the same charges, except that “the only difference [was] adding the dates of the offense that [the State] had sought in [its] motion to amend, which had been denied.” Furthermore, according to Huntley, the State had ample time to investigate the case before filing the first indictment and ample time to investigate after filing the first indictment but before the March 3, 2008, trial date. Consequently, in Huntley’s view, matters of timing as to filing the charging document and what allegations were contained in that document were all within the State’s control.
Conversely, the State maintained that “[i]n this case there was a defect in the charging document” and that the State acted timely in addressing that defect. The prosecutor conceded that as early as January 2, 2008, the State knew from conversations with the victim that there was an issue as to the actual dates of the crime. In addition, the State informed the hearing judge that it knew from conversations with Huntley’s defense counsel on February 14, 2008, “that there may be some issues with the dates [alleged in the indictment].” According to the State, as a result of the defect “there was no crime that occurred [during the period September 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006]” and the State acted promptly to remedy the defect by bringing the matter to the court’s attention prior to trial. Because the State argued that the crimes actually occurred during the period April 1, 2003, through July 31, 2005, and the court failed to grant the State’s motion to amend the indictment, the State maintains that it was compelled to nol pros the charges and file “an entirely different charging document.”
*307After considering the arguments of counsel and the essential facts, Judge Jackson ruled, in reliance upon our decisions in Price and Curley, that there was a violation of the Hicks rale and that the appropriate sanction was dismissal of the charges. Judge Jackson explained that the State attempted to amend the indictment after 179 days had elapsed from the filing of the indictment. That motion was denied. Thereafter, the State filed new charges “alleging the same sex offenses against the same victim during a different time period, April of '03 through July of '05. That indictment was filed on March 24, 2008. That is well beyond [Hicks].” Judge Jackson concluded that the purpose of the “State’s nol pros in March of 2008 ... was to evade the effect of Judge Beckstead’s ruling denying the motion to amend.” In addition, Judge Jackson concluded that there was no defect in the charging document. He pointed out that “a defect in a pleading or charging document means not to contain necessary language, statutory language to charge an offense.” A defect in the charging document does not mean, as Judge Jackson explained, that the indictment contained the wrong or incorrect dates.
In its brief, filed in this Court, the State acknowledges that the trial judge’s ruling on the motion to amend was discretionary; 4 nonetheless, the State contends that “[o]nce the amendment was denied, [it] had no choice but to enter a nolle prosequi.” Instead of nol prossing the indictment, since Hicks was an obvious problem in the case, the State, however, had the option of bringing the matter to the attention of the administrative judge or his designee for purposes of a continu*308anee. See Md. Rule 4-271. Of course, that would have required the State to convince the administrative judge that there was good cause to do so. Because the State elected to enter a nol pros, the administrative judge was never afforded an opportunity to make a good cause determination on the issue of changing the trial date to accommodate the State. To say that the State had no other option than to nol pros the charges is to ignore the point in the proceedings when the State sought to amend the charging document. The State’s position also overlooks an important policy consideration underlying the Hicks rule: the need to afford a reasonably prompt trial by eliminating excessive scheduling delays and unjustifiable postponements. Although the State had discretion to enter a nol pros at anytime prior to entry of the verdict, it did not have the discretion to circumvent the requirements of Hicks.
In Curley, 299 Md. at 462, 474 A.2d at 508, we recognized, for the first time, an exception to the general rule that
when a circuit court criminal case is nol prossed, and the [S]tate later has the same charges refiled, the 180-day period for trial prescribed by [Hicks ] ordinarily begins to run with the arraignment or first appearance of defense counsel under the second prosecution.
We held that
[ijf, however, it is shown that the nol pros had the purpose or the effect of circumventing the requirements of [Hicks ], the 180-day period will commence to run with the arraignment or first appearance of counsel under the first prosecution.
Id. at 462, 474 A.2d at 508.
Curley’s original trial date was continued at his attorney’s request; however, a new trial date was never set. On the 180th day, the State entered a nol pros of all the charges. According to the State, certain evidence was inadmissible and the victim’s family did not wish to go forward with the case. Nonetheless, approximately three months later the State filed another charging document, charging the defendant with the *309same offenses. Defense counsel filed motions to dismiss, which were denied. Upon our review of the case and in our application of the exception to the facts, we pointed out that when the nol pros was entered on the final day for trial it was too late to comply with the Hicks rule. We explained:
At the time a trial date had not even been assigned. The case could not have been tried on March 23rd, as the defendant, his counsel, and witnesses were not present. There was no reason for them to have been present, as March 23rd was not the assigned trial date. As of the close of business on March 23rd, the case would have had to have been dismissed for violation of [Hicks]. In reality, the prosecution had already lost this case under [Hicks] when the nol pros was filed. Regardless of the prosecuting attorney’s motives, the necessary effect of the nol pros was an attempt to evade the dismissal resulting from the failure to try the case within 180 days.
Curley, 299 Md. at 462, 474 A.2d at 508-09.
The appellee further points out in its brief, filed in this case, that we said, “[i]n Curley, [that] the motives of the State in entering a nol pros for the charges was irrelevant[,]” because the State had already lost its case when the nol pros was filed. In other words, because it was too late to comply with Hicks, “the necessary effect of the nol pros was an attempt to evade the dismissal resulting from the failure to try the case within 180 days.” Curley, 299 Md. at 462-63, 474 A.2d at 509.
In Ross, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the State’s purpose in entering the nol pros was to circumvent the Hicks rule. On the trial date, the State requested a postponement because the drugs that were seized from the defendant had not yet been analyzed. The parties appeared before the administrative judge and the judge denied the State’s request for a continuance. In denying the motion for a continuance, the administrative judge pointed out that the “docket is too crowded. [The case] cannot be put back in before Hicks runs, and I am not finding good cause[.]” Ross, 117 Md.App. at 361, 700 A.2d at 284. The State then entered a nol pros and filed a
*310new indictment approximately eight days later. The “trial on the second indictment began on April 25, 1996, ... outside the 180-day limit under the first indictment.” Id. at 361, 700 A.2d at 284. Prior to trial, Ross moved to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that “the State had circumvented the 180-day time period by nol prossing the charges against him when its request for a continuance was denied.” Id. The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss.
In reversing the denial of the motion to dismiss, the Court of Special Appeals explained that
a postponement was requested and denied and, as found by the administrative judge, the case could not be set in before the tolling of the 180-day limit. We again stress that in light of the administrative judge’s supervision of the docket, we are unable to ignore his statement that the case could not be heard before expiration of the 180-day time period. In addition, immediately following the judge’s ruling, the State entered a nol pros in the case. We can discern no clearer attempt to circumvent the time period dictated by [Hicks ].
Ross, 117 Md.App. at 370, 700 A.2d at 289.
In the present case, the State’s motives in entering the nol pros were twofold: (a) to evade the effects of Judge Beck-stead’s ruling denying the motion to amend; and (b) to circumvent the requirements of Hicks. At the time of the hearing on the motion to amend, Judge Beckstead focused her attention on the reasons for the motion to amend and on the consequences of delaying the trial if the motion to amend were granted on the trial date. The trial judge posed the question to the State: “[I]s there some reason for the delay and the request for the charging document to be corrected?” The court further inquired whether “the State [has] given information to the defense so that it can prepare for today’s amendment?” In addition, the trial judge asked: “[I]f your motion is denied, your intention would be?” In ruling on the motion to amend, Judge Beckstead made clear that the requirements of Hicks were taken into consideration. She said, because *311“[w]e’re now at 180 days[,]” she would deny the request to amend the charging document.
Immediately after Judge Beekstead raised the 180-day requirement and denied the motion to amend, the State entered a nol pros. As the intermediate appellate court recognized in Ross, considering the timing of the State’s entry of the nol pros, there can be no clearer attempt to circumvent the 180-day limit. In my view, it makes no sense to suggest that the State intended to evade only the effects of Judge Beckstead’s order denying the motion to amend, but did not intend to evade the effects of Hicks, when the next day was the 180th day under the Hicks calculation. We must consider the court’s rulings in the context in which they were rendered. Before entering the nol pros, the State made no effort to prevent a violation of Hicks. The State did not bring the matter of rescheduling to the attention of the administrative judge, assuming that judge would have continued the trial date under the circumstances. The State’s only alternative to a nol pros was to try the case. Moreover, there was no practical way, given the late date, the day before the Hicks expiration, that the State could have refiled and tried the case the next day after entering the nol pros. Having determined so close to the expiration of Hicks that the offenses occurred between April 1, 2003, and July 31, 2005, instead of September 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, as alleged, the State’s entry of the nol pros was no more than a tactical maneuver taking into consideration the insufficiency of its evidence.
The appellee contends that “[pjrior to seeking an indictment, the State had ample opportunity to investigate the case.” The appellee further points out that “even after obtaining an indictment, the State had six months to continue its investigation of the case in preparation for trial.” The appellee is correct. The State knew approximately two months before the March 3rd trial date that the evidence it had was in conflict with the allegations contained in the indictment. To say that it resolved the conflict in its evidence one week prior to trial and did not act to correct the indictment until the day of trial clearly does little to satisfy the State’s obligation to *312prepare its cases and bring them to trial promptly within the requirements of Hicks. At the time that the State made its motion to amend the dates in the indictment, the trial judge inquired and obtained the positions of both the State and defense counsel as to their positions on a continuance. The State was agreeable to a continuance if the amendment was granted, but Huntley was not. He never consented to, or waived his right to, a trial under Hicks. Ultimately, the trial judge denied the State’s request to amend the dates in the indictment and the judge indicated that the parties were at the 180-day deadline. Judge Beckstead’s denial of the motion to amend was, in effect, a mandate that the trial proceed, as scheduled, with no alterations to the charging document.
Although Price involved the Circuit Court’s denial of the State’s motion to continue the trial date in order to obtain DNA results, it is analogous to the present case because the State’s purpose in entering the nol pros, in Price, was to circumvent the requirements of Hicks. The difference between Price and the present case is that in the former case, the administrative judge had an opportunity to speak before the State entered the nol pros. Moreover, in Price, the State conceded that it entered the nol pros to avoid the consequences resulting from a dismissal of the case for not going forward or an acquittal for not producing evidence. The State’s motives in entering the nol pros were also relevant to the Hicks analysis. Likewise, in the present case, the State’s motives in entering the nol pros are illuminating. In the present case, the State contends, however, that it was necessary to nol pros the first indictment in order to cure a defect in the charging document.
In the present case, however, a judicial determination was made that there was no defect in the indictment. Judge Jackson explained that the claim that the State alleged the wrong dates did not render the indictment defective. See State v. Mulkey, 316 Md. 475, 482, 560 A.2d 24, 27 (1989) (explaining that “the exact date of the offense is not an essential element, and is not constitutionally required to be set forth”). In addition, a judicial determination was made, as we *313explained previously, that the State had to proceed to trial on the indictment as written. To evade that ruling and its mandate that the State proceed to trial on the evidence that it had, the State entered a nol pros in an attempt to circumvent the authority and decision of the court.
This case is unlike State v. Glenn, 299 Md. 464, 474 A.2d 509 (1984). In Glenn, prior to trial, the State determined that the charging documents were defective because they failed to allege that Glenn and his co-defendants knowingly distributed obscene materials, one of the elements of the offense for which they were charged. In Glenn, the record established “that the charges were nol prossed because of a legitimate belief that the charging documents were defective and ... the defendants’ attorney would not agree to amendment of the charging documents.” 299 Md. at 467, 474 A.2d at 511. The State nol prossed the charges on November 17,1981; the 180-day period would not have expired until January 13, 1982. Id. at 465-66, 474 A.2d at 510. On the same day, the State refiled charges to correct what was indeed a defect in the charging documents. The defense moved to dismiss on the basis of Hicks. That motion was granted and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Id. at 466, 474 A.2d at 511. We granted certiorari and, after our review, we held that the prosecuting attorney’s purpose in nol prossing the charges against Glenn was not to evade the 180-day rule but, rather, resulted from the defendants’ refusal to allow the State to amend the charging documents. Id. at 467, 474 A.2d at 511. Accordingly, we explained that unlike the situation in Curley,
the assigned trial date and the date of the nol pros[ ] was only 123 days after the arraignment and first appearance of counsel. If the eases had not been nol prossed, trial could have proceeded on November 17th. If the cases had not been nol prossed, and if for some reason trial had not proceeded when the cases were called on November 17th, there remained fifty-seven days before the expiration of the 180-day deadline. In Curley, if the case had not been nol *314prossed on the 180th day, it necessarily would have been dismissed for a violation of [Hicks ].
Id. at 467, 474 A.2d at 511.
The reason that Glenn is distinguishable from the present case is that, in Glenn, when the State elected to nol pros the charges there remained 57 days before the expiration of the 180-day period. Accordingly, the State did not violate the Hicks mandate by nol prossing the charges. See, Id. at 467, 474 A.2d at 511. Clearly, if the State had nol prossed the charges in Glenn, as in the present case, the day prior to the expiration of Hicks, both the rationale of Curley and Hicks would apply and the appropriate sanction for evading Hicks would be a dismissal of the case. Glenn, perhaps more than Curley, demonstrates that the majority’s analysis is simply incorrect in its efforts to distinguish Curley and Glenn and then conclude that “the Curley exceptions analysis is inappropriate where a nol pros is entered based on a flawed charging document.” See State v. Huntley, 411 Md. 288, 300 n. 13, 983 A.2d 160,167 n. 13 (2009). Reading Curley and Glenn together, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the same analysis the Court applied in Curley was applied in Glenn and should be applied in the present case.
In the instant case, Judge Beckstead acted within her discretion and denied the motion to amend the indictment. There is no contention that the trial judge abused her discretion in denying that motion. This is similar to the situation in Alther, 157 Md.App. at 337, 850 A.2d at 1224, a case in which the State entered a nol pros, but not to cure a defect in the charging document; instead, it was entered to evade the court’s order denying the consolidation of charges. The Court of Special Appeals held in Alther that the “necessary effect” of entering the nol pros, “four days before the end of the 180 day period, was to circumvent the 180-day rule.” Id. at 338, 850 A.2d at 1224. The alternative to entering the nol pros in that case was a dismissal for failure to comply with Hicks. Id.
Given the alternatives available to the State, in the present case, the nol pros was intended to or did circumvent the *315requirements of Hicks. If the State had been given that which it requested, there would have been no reason for it to nol pros the charges and refile the indictment. The majority opinion suggests that the trial judge’s “[djenial of the amendment created a situation essentially where the trial could not proceed.” See State v. Huntley, 411 Md. at 300 n. 13, 983 A.2d at 167 n. 13 (2009). Also, according to the majority, “it would not have been an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court were it to have granted Huntley a continuance.” See State v. Huntley, 411 Md. at 300-01 n. 14, 983 A.2d at 168 n. 14 (2009). The majority is incorrect on both points. First, the court’s ruling on the motion to amend did not prevent the State from going forward with its case. For example, nothing prevented the State from requesting an amendment to the dates in the charging document, by interlineation, if necessary, once it presented its evidence at trial. Second, only the administrative judge or his designee may grant a continuance of the trial. The trial judge had no authority to continue the trial date, unless the trial judge was also the administrative judge or his designee for postponements. The record, in the present case, however, does not suggest that the trial judge was also the administrative judge or his designee for postponements. The trial date in this case was March 3, 2008. Therefore, only the administrative judge had authority to continue the trial to a date outside the requirements of Hicks. As we explained in Curley, if “whenever the [S]tate desired a trial postponement beyond 180 days, it could nol pros the case, refile the same charges, and thereby cause the time period to start running anew, the requirements of [Hicks ] would largely be rendered meaningless.” Curley, 299 Md. at 461, 474 A.2d at 508.
For example, if the State had been dissatisfied with a ruling of the trial court with regard to a motion to amend, made one or two months prior to the expiration of the Hicks date, there probably would have been adequate time to re-indict before the 179th day or even the 180th day and thereby try the case within Hicks. Here, the State did not take that precaution and entered a nolle prosequi on the 179th day. As the hearing *316court found and the State concedes, the State’s purpose in entering a nolle prosequi was to circumvent Judge Beckstead’s ruling denying the motion to amend. Thus, the entry of the nol pros was not a legitimate option for the State. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the State’s purpose in entering the nol pros was not to circumvent the requirements of Hicks, it is quite obvious that by entering the nol pros on the last day prior to the expiration of Hicks, that the necessary effect of entering the nol pros, regardless of motive, circumvented Hicks. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, I respectfully dissent.
Chief Judge BELL joins in the views herein expressed.

. The term “Hicks," “Hicks rule,” or “Hicks requirements” is used as a shorthand for the 180-day requirement contained in Md.Code (2001, 2008 Repl.Vol.), § 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article and Md. Rule 4-271 and as explicated in this Court’s decision in State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310, 403 A.2d 356 (1979).

. Section 6-103(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article, "Trial date,” states:
(a) Requirements for setting date.—
(1) The date for trial of a criminal matter in the circuit court shall be set within 30 days after the earlier of:
(i) the appearance of counsel; or
(ii) the first appearance of the defendant before the circuit court, as provided in the Maryland Rules.
*304(2) The trial date may not be later than 180 days after the earlier of those events.

. Md. Rule 4-271(a), "Trial date,” states:
(a) Trial date in circuit court.
(1) The date for trial in the circuit court shall be set within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the circuit court pursuant to Rule 4-213, and shall be not later than 180 days after the earlier of those events. When a case has been transferred from the District Court because of a demand for jury trial, and an appearance of counsel entered in the District Court was automatically entered in the circuit court pursuant to Rule 4-214(a), the date of the appearance of counsel for purposes of this Rule is the date the case was docketed in the circuit court. On motion of a party, or on the court's initiative, and for good cause shown, the county administrative judge or that judge’s designee may grant a change of a circuit court trial date. If a circuit court trial date is changed, any subsequent changes of the trial date may be made only by the county administrative judge or that judge’s designee for good cause shown.

. Maryland Rule 4-204 provides that the court may permit a charging document to be amended at anytime before verdict unless the amendment changes the character of the offenses charged, in which case the parties’ consent is required. See Holbrook v. State, 133 Md.App. 245, 260, 754 A.2d 1103, 1110 (2000) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion permitting the State to amend an indictment to change the date that the defendant allegedly made a threat of arson); Manuel v. State, 85 Md.App. 1, 18-19, 581 A.2d 1287, 1295 (1990) (holding that the date that an indictment alleges that the criminal conduct occurred "may be amended in the court’s discretion without changing the character of the offense”).