Court Opinion

ID: 9411091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 19:13:35.098192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:03.789574
License: Public Domain

Caitlin Nichole Stanton v. State of Maryland, No. 1541, September Term 2022. Opinion
by Wells, C. J.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS
(IAD) – REQUEST BY INMATE FOR FINAL DISPOSITION

In general, the notice provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) are
mandatory. Further, the burden is on the inmate to request the disposition of pending
charges in the appropriate manner. However, where an inmate has substantially complied
with these statutory requirements, proof of actual notice may prove sufficient for that
inmate to receive the benefit of these statutes. Still, these provisions may not be totally
ignored. Here, because the inmate could not demonstrate that she filed any written notice
or request for final disposition, she did not invoke the statutory benefit of being brought to
trial within 180 days. Md. Code Ann., Correctional Services §§ 8-405, 8-416.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS
(IAD) – REQUEST BY INMATE FOR FINAL DISPOSITION

The issuance of a bench warrant does not start the 180-day IAD clock in which the State
must bring a defendant to trial. Rather, the issuance of a warrant, and the subsequent
lodging of a detainer, creates the circumstances under which the IAD applies. To invoke
the 180-day IAD clock, the inmate must file a request for IAD relief with the warden or
other official of the institution where the inmate is currently imprisoned, who then must
forward the request to the appropriate authorities in the receiving state. Md. Code Ann.,
Correctional Services § 8-405.
Circuit Court for Garrett County
Case No. C-11-CR-20-000080
                                                                               REPORTED

                                                                      IN THE APPELLATE COURT

                                                                            OF MARYLAND*

                                                                                 No. 1541

                                                                          September Term, 2022
                                                                ______________________________________

                                                                     CAITLIN NICHOLE STANTON

                                                                                     v.

                                                                        STATE OF MARYLAND
                                                                ______________________________________

                                                                     Wells, C.J.,
                                                                     Kehoe,
                                                                     Zarnoch, Robert A.,
                                                                       (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

                                                                                  JJ.
                                                                ______________________________________

                                                                          Opinion by Wells, C.J.
                                                                ______________________________________

                                                                     Filed: July 25, 2023

Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this
document is authentic.

                 2023-07-25 14:52-04:00

Gregory Hilton, Clerk

*At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional
amendment changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland to the
Appellate Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
       In the Circuit Court for Garrett County, Maryland, the State charged Appellant,

Caitlin Nichole Stanton, with possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute,

along with several other related offenses. While Stanton was released on bond for this

matter, she was arrested and sentenced to a period of incarceration in West Virginia on

separate charges. When Stanton failed to appear for a motions hearing before the circuit

court in Maryland, her attorney requested the court issue a bench warrant to initiate the

Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”)1 process. In July 2021, the circuit court issued

a warrant for Stanton and continued her case until she was available from her incarceration

in West Virginia. In May 2022, the circuit court granted Stanton’s request to quash the

warrant. About a month later, Stanton moved to dismiss with prejudice the charges against

her, arguing that the State and circuit court had actual notice of her request to have her case

heard pursuant to the IAD. The court denied her motion to dismiss, and Stanton filed this

timely appeal. On appeal, she submits the following question for our review: “Did the

circuit court err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for the State’s failure to comply

with the [IAD]?”

       For the following reasons, we conclude the circuit court did not err in denying

Stanton’s motion to dismiss, and, therefore, we shall affirm the court’s judgment.

                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       On August 19, 2020, Stanton was charged in the District Court of Garrett County,

       1
        The specifics of the IAD and Maryland’s adoption and codification of the Act will
be discussed in more detail in our analysis below.
Maryland by complaint with possession of a controlled dangerous substance

(methamphetamine), possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and

possession of drug paraphernalia. That same day, Appellant was released on bond on the

charges. On October 15, 2020, the State’s Attorney for Garrett County charged Stanton

by criminal information in the Circuit Court for Garrett County with the same offenses as

well as driving while impaired by a controlled dangerous substance, driving without a

license, and related payable traffic offenses.

       On October 27, 2020, Stanton’s defense attorney entered his appearance and

requested a speedy trial on Stanton’s behalf. On November 25, 2020, Stanton entered a

not guilty plea and requested a jury trial, which was scheduled for July 8, 2021

       However, while Stanton was released on bond and awaiting trial in Maryland, she

was arrested and sentenced to a period of incarceration in West Virginia on charges

unrelated to this case. On May 6, 2021, the Maryland State’s Attorney e-mailed Stanton’s

defense counsel regarding how to resolve her case in Maryland via the IAD:

       The records lady [employee in West Virginia] had had a conversation with
       [Stanton] about coming to [Maryland] to resolve her case via Interstate Act
       on Detainers. However, there is no warrant outstanding in our case, which is
       what triggers IAD. Would you like to talk to her about filing to revoke her
       bond so we can get that warrant and the process can begin? Otherwise, there
       should be a warrant on July 8, 2021 when she [fails to appear].

Stanton’s defense counsel replied that there was “no way to revoke bail” because the

individual who paid Stanton’s bond was incarcerated, concluding “I guess we will let the

Judge know, get a [failure to appear bench warrant], and get her in via IAD afterwards.”

       On July 6, 2021, the State’s Attorney and defense counsel appeared before the

                                                 2
circuit court for a pre-trial motions hearing. At the motions hearing, the State’s Attorney

informed the court that “Ms. Stanton is currently serving a sentence in the West Virginia

Division of Corrections and, obviously, not available to us at this time.” When the court

asked “has there been a transportation order[,]” the State’s Attorney responded, “No. The

only -- I mean the only way we can get her is if we had a warrant and we invoke the

Interstate Act on Detainers.” Defense counsel then requested the court issue a bench

warrant for Stanton to initiate the IAD process, stating, “[I]n order for the Interstate, for

the IAD to work, [] we’re asking Your Honor to consider actually doing that now for the

fact that she isn’t present for this hearing, actually issue a warrant to start the process.”

Defense counsel also informed the court of Stanton’s failed attempts to initiate the IAD

process in West Virginia. The State’s Attorney did not object to this request, and the court

issued a bench warrant for Stanton.

       On July 8, 2021—the scheduled trial date—the circuit court granted a continuance

“until she’s available from her incarceration in another state.”

       On May 4, 2022, Stanton requested that the circuit court quash the July 6, 2021

bench warrant so that she could be transferred to a sober living program as part of her

sentence in West Virginia. Two days later, the court granted Stanton’s request.

       On June 3, 2022, Stanton filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the charges against

her in Garrett County. In her motion to dismiss, Stanton alleged that, prior to her bench

warrant in July 2021, she made multiple requests with correctional officers in West

Virginia for paperwork to be transferred to Maryland via IAD for her trial. Stanton argued

that these requests, combined with the e-mail exchange between her attorney and the

                                              3
State’s Attorney, as well as the subsequent hearings in July 2021, put the State and the

circuit court on “actual notice of [her] request to have her case heard pursuant to the IAD.”

And, according to Stanton, because the State violated the IAD, “this matter should be

dismissed with prejudice.”2

       In response, the State argued that Stanton “did not effectively invoke the provisions

of the IAD.” On June 14, 2022, the circuit court denied Stanton’s motion to dismiss without

a hearing.

       Two days later, Stanton entered a not guilty plea and proceeded by way of an agreed

statement of facts as to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to

distribute. The circuit court found Stanton guilty of the amended count, and sentenced her

to five years’ incarceration, with all but 18 months suspended, and three years of supervised

probation upon release. Stanton timely appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss.

                                      DISCUSSION

 I.    The Interstate Agreement on Detainers

       A. Parties’ Contentions

       Stanton contends that the circuit court erred by denying her motion to dismiss the

charges against her despite the State’s failure to comply with the IAD. While Stanton

concedes that “[w]ritten notice to the receiving state of the inmate’s intent to invoke the

IAD is required[,]” she points out that this notice requirement “may be satisfied by proof

of actual notice.” See State v. Barnes, 273 Md. 195, 210 (1974). Stanton argues that her e-

       2
        Stanton also argued that her right to a speedy trial had been violated. However,
because Stanton makes no such claim on appeal, we decline to address this issue.
                                             4
mail exchange with the State’s Attorney and the motions hearing before the circuit court

placed both on actual notice that she intended to proceed under the IAD and that the State’s

Attorney had 180 days to bring her to trial. Because the State failed to do so, according to

Stanton, it violated the IAD and therefore, the court should have granted her motion to

dismiss.

       The State counters that the circuit court properly denied Stanton’s motion to dismiss

because she failed to comply with the strict and mandatory requirements of the IAD. The

State posits that, to initiate the State’s obligations under the IAD, the defendant must first

submit a written request that complies with a series of requirements and is actually received

by the appropriate court and state’s attorney’s office. “And it is the defendant’s burden to

demonstrate compliance with the formal procedural requirements of the IAD.” See

Thurman v. State, 89 Md. App. 125, 131 (1991). The State contends that Stanton’s

communication with the State’s Attorney and circuit court “[a]t most, . . . alerted the State

and trial court that Stanton intended, at some point in the future, to submit a request” that

complied with the IAD requirements. Aside from that, she “presents no evidence that she

ever filed any such written request, or that she complied with the IAD’s specific, mandatory

requirements[.]” Finally, the State argues that Barnes has no bearing on this case because

“[u]nlike Barnes, Stanton wholly failed to submit any request, compliant with the IAD or

not, for final disposition of her case.” Without such a request, the State contends, there can

be no actual notice.

                                              5
       B. Standard of Review

       The interpretation of a statute, in this instance the IAD, is a question of law which

we review de novo. Dejarnette v. State, 478 Md. 148, 162 (2022). “Generally, the standard

of review of the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss is whether the trial court was legally

correct.” Blackstone v. Sharma, 461 Md. 87, 110 (2018) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted).

       C. Analysis

       The IAD is a congressionally-sanctioned compact among the states designed
       to facilitate the prompt disposition of a detainer lodged by one state against
       a person incarcerated in another state. In particular, the IAD allows for the
       temporary transfer of the prisoner from the state of incarceration to the state
       in which charges are pending, upon the request of either the prisoner or the
       prosecuting jurisdiction.

Aleman v. State, 469 Md. 397, 402 (2020).3 Maryland became a party to the compact in

1965. Chapter 627, § 1, Laws of Maryland 1965. The IAD is now codified as Maryland

Code, Correctional Services Article (“CS”), § 8-401 et seq.

       Two provisions of this code are pertinent in this case. Section 8-405(a) provides:

       Whenever a person has entered upon a term of imprisonment in a penal
       or correctional institution of a party state, and whenever during the
       continuance of the term of imprisonment there is pending in any other party
       state any untried indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which
       a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner, the prisoner shall be
       brought to trial within 180 days after the prisoner shall have caused to
       be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the
       prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction written notice of the place of the
       prisoner’s imprisonment and the prisoner’s request for a final
       disposition to be made of the indictment, information, or complaint;

       3
        We forego an in-depth discussion of the history of the IAD, as our Supreme Court
recently provided such a background in Aleman v. State, 469 Md. 397, 403–09, cert.
denied, 208 L. Ed. 2d 278, 141 S. Ct. 671 (2020).
                                              6
      provided that for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or the
      prisoner’s counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter
      may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance. The request of the
      prisoner shall be accompanied by a certificate of the appropriate official
      having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment under
      which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time
      remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned,
      the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state
      parole agency relating to the prisoner.

(Emphasis added). And § 8-416 specifies, in relevant part:

      As to any request by an individual confined in another party state for trial in
      this State, written notice may not be deemed to have been delivered to the
      prosecuting officers and the appropriate court of this State in accordance with
      § 8-405(a) . . . of this subtitle . . . until the notice or notification is actually
      received by the appropriate court and the appropriate State’s Attorney
      of this State, the State’s Attorney’s deputy or assistant, or any other person
      empowered to receive mail on behalf of the State’s Attorney.

(Emphasis added).

      On the one hand, we have held that the notice provisions of § 8-405(a) are

“mandatory and not directory.” Thurman v. State, 89 Md. App. 125, 131 (1991) (citing

Hines v. State, 58 Md. App. 637, 649 (1984)). In Thurman, Thurman mailed his IAD

request to the appropriate court, but not the prosecuting officer. 89 Md. App. at 127-28.

Additionally, there was no evidence that his request was actually received by the

prosecuting officer. Id. Analyzing the notice provisions,4 we affirmed that these

requirements “are mandatory and not directory, and that the burden is on the prisoner to

request the benefits of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers in the appropriate manner.”

      4
         At the time this case was decided, the IAD was codified in the Maryland Code as
Article 27, § 616A et seq. In 1999, it was recodified as part of the then-new Correctional
Services Article. Chapter 54, Laws of Maryland 1999. For purposes of our analysis,
however, this recodification did not alter the substance of the notice provisions.
                                               7
Id. at 131. However, we also agreed with the U.S. District Court for the District of

Maryland’s assessment in a similar case that:

       Although strict compliance with each particular of the notice requirement
       may not be mandatory, see, e.g., State v. Barnes, 273 Md. 195, 328 A.2d 737
       (1974), more is required than merely addressing a request to one of the
       persons required by statute to be notified…. The notice provision of the IAD
       was obviously enacted to ensure adequate notification to the state, and its
       particulars may not be ignored totally…. A prisoner seeking to benefit from
       the statute must first meet the burden of compliance with the Act. Petitioner,
       having failed to satisfy the notice prerequisites of the Act … may not now
       complain that he was denied its benefits.

Id. at 132 (quoting Williams v. Maryland, 445 F. Supp. 1216 (D. Md. 1978)) (citations

omitted). Because § 8-405(a) “requires that the prisoner notify both the State’s Attorney’s

Office and the appropriate court[,]” we ruled that “[m]erely delivering one copy of the IAD

request to one of the persons required by the statute to be notified is not sufficient[,]” and

therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of Thurman’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 132.

       On the other hand, we have also held that “it is actual notice and not exact

compliance with the statute that matters.” State v. Coale, 250 Md. App. 1, 39-40 (2021)

(referencing Barnes v. State, 273 Md. 195 (1974)). In Barnes, while serving a sentence in

a Maryland prison for an unrelated crime, Barnes was indicted in Baltimore City for first-

degree murder. 273 Md. at 196. Shortly thereafter, a warrant was issued, and a detainer

was lodged against him. Id. Upon learning of the detainer, Barnes filed a request for a final

disposition of the pending charge within 120 days pursuant to the Intrastate Detainer Act

                                              8
(“IDA”).5 Id. at 196-97. The IDA requires the inmate to give written notice of his or her

request for trial to the appropriate prosecuting officer and court by certified mail. Id. at 207

n.11. While it was undisputed that the appropriate state’s attorney received Barnes’ notice

by certified mail, there was no evidence that the trial court received such notice by certified

mail.6 Id. at 196-97. However, it was also undisputed that the state’s attorney’s office

forwarded Barnes’ request to the trial court, and neither brought the case to trial within 120

days. Id. at 197-98.

       First, the Supreme Court of Maryland7 recognized that the IAD and IDA, enacted

by the General Assembly on the same date, “are identical as to purpose and rationale[.]”

Id. at 206-09. And, while a “liberal construction” should be applied to these statutes “to

encourage expeditious and orderly disposition of outstanding charges[,]” the Court

cautioned that “[w]e do not suggest, however, that any such liberal construction to

       5
         The Intrastate Detainer Act (“IDA”), now codified as CS §§ 8-501—03, allows
for the temporary transfer of an inmate from one of Maryland’s correctional facilities to
the county in Maryland in which charges are pending. Such an inmate who has delivered
to the proper state’s attorney and court a written request for a final disposition of the charge,
must be brought to trial within 120 days of that receipt. See CS §§ 8-501—03.
       6
         It appears that although officers at the correctional facility sent Barnes’ notice to
the state’s attorney by certified mail, they mailed copies to the clerk of the criminal court
by first-class mail. Id. at 197.
       7
         At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the
Supreme Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022. See
also Md. Rule 1-101.1(a) (“From and after December 14, 2022, any reference in these
Rules or, in any proceedings before any court of the Maryland Judiciary, any reference in
any statute, ordinance, or regulation applicable in Maryland to the Court of Appeals of
Maryland shall be deemed to refer to the Supreme Court of Maryland . . . .”).

                                               9
effectuate the purposes of the statute should absolve proof by competent evidence of those

conditions precedent necessary for bringing the provisions of the statute into play.” Id. at

209.

       The applicability of each of the statutes is predicated upon knowledge by
       the prisoner of the nature and content of the filed detainer and the delivery
       of his written request-with accompanying statements from the warden-
       to the State’s Attorney and the appropriate court in the jurisdiction
       where the charge is pending, that a final disposition be made of that
       charge.

Id. (emphasis added). Acknowledging that the “failure to comply with the statutory

requirements of notice may sometimes be fatal (jurisdictionally),” the Court also

recognized that the notice requirement “may be satisfied by proof of actual notice[,]”

especially “when the knowledge has been acted upon without reliance upon the defects in

the notice.” Id. at 210.

       Reviewing the circumstances in Barnes, the Court held that the trial court had

“actual notice” of Barnes’ request even though the compliant notice was transmitted to the

court via the state’s attorney’s office. Id. at 211. “The technical noncomformity on the part

of personnel at the House of Correction in failing to cause delivery to the ‘appropriate

court’ by certified mail cannot be here permitted to cause a forfeiture of the legal rights of

the respondent under the statute.” Id. For the Court, the fact that both the state’s attorney’s

office and trial court “treated the notice as an invocation” of the inmate’s right to a final

disposition of the pending charges, further supported a more liberal construction of the

notice requirements. See id. Under these circumstances, because the State failed to bring

                                              10
the case to trial within 120 days of notice of Barnes’ request, the charges were dismissed.

Id. at 211-12.

       Read together, these cases indicate that, in general, the IAD (and IDA) notice

provisions are mandatory. And, that the burden is on the inmate to request the disposition

of pending charges in the appropriate manner. However, where an inmate has substantially

complied with these statutory requirements, proof of actual notice may prove sufficient for

that inmate to receive the benefit of these statutes. Still, these provisions may not be totally

ignored.

       In the case at bar, Stanton has not demonstrated that she complied with the IAD. As

discussed above, under § 8-405(a), for such an inmate to exercise the right to be brought

to trial on pending charges within 180 days, the inmate must file a written notice and

request for final disposition. That request must be accompanied by:

       a certificate of the appropriate official having custody of the prisoner, stating
       the term of commitment under which the prisoner is being held, the time
       already served, the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the amount
       of good time earned, the time of parole eligibility of the prisoner, and any
       decisions of the state parole agency relating to the prisoner.

§ 8-405(a). However, Stanton presents no evidence that she filed any written notice or

request, let alone such notice and request in compliance with the IAD.

       Instead, Stanton relies on Barnes, and argues that the e-mail exchange with the

State’s Attorney coupled with the motions hearing in which the circuit court issued a bench

warrant for Stanton, put the court and State on actual notice of Stanton’s request to have

her case heard in 180 days pursuant to the IAD. We disagree for several reasons. First, as

a preliminary matter, the issuance of a bench warrant does not start the 180-day IAD clock

                                              11
under which the State must bring a defendant to trial. Rather, as the State points out, the

issuance of a warrant, and the subsequent lodging of a detainer, creates the circumstances

under which the IAD applies. As our Supreme Court explained in State v. Pair:

       The interstate transfer process begins when the “receiving” state lodges
       a detainer with the warden “or other official” of the institution where
       the prisoner in question is currently imprisoned, in what is referred to
       as the custodial or “sending” state. The warden or other authority in the
       sending state is then obligated to inform the inmate of the detainer’s source
       and contents, and of the inmate’s right, under the IAD, to request final
       disposition of the charges on which the detainer is based.

       To exercise the right of speedy disposition, the inmate must file a request
       for IAD relief with the warden, who must forward the request to
       appropriate authorities in the receiving state.

416 Md. 157, 162 (2010) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). As such, the court’s

bench warrant for Stanton did not trigger the 180-day clock; Stanton still needed to file

written notice and request, which she did not.

       Second, Stanton’s e-mail communication with the State’s Attorney and dialogue

with the circuit court at the motions hearing did not put either on actual notice of a request

to have her case heard in 180 days pursuant to the IAD. In the e-mail exchange, the State’s

Attorney explained to defense counsel that in order to “begin” the IAD process, Maryland

would need to issue a warrant for Stanton. At the motions hearing, the State’s Attorney and

defense counsel reiterated to the circuit court that the issuance of a bench warrant would

be needed to start the IAD process. As explained above, the IAD process begins when the

“receiving” state lodges a detainer, often facilitated by issuing a warrant for the inmate.

See Pair, 416 Md. at 162. But, issuing a warrant and lodging a detainer do not trigger an

inmate’s right of speedy disposition. Rather, that right is triggered by the inmate filing a

                                             12
written notice and request compliant with the IAD provisions. We agree with the State that

these communications, at best “alerted the State and the trial court that Stanton intended,

at some point in the future, to submit a request” that complied with the IAD requirements.

However, Stanton presents no such evidence.

       Finally, we find Barnes plainly distinguishable from the case before us. In Barnes,

the Court held that the trial court had “actual notice” of Barnes’ request where the inmate

substantially complied with the statutory requirements. 273 Md. at 211. By contrast, here,

Stanton failed to file any request, clearly not complying with the IAD. Under these

circumstances, we cannot conclude that the State’s Attorney or the circuit court had actual

notice of Stanton’s not-yet submitted request.

       For these reasons, we determine that the circuit court did not err in denying

Appellant’s motion to dismiss and affirm.

                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
                                                 COURT FOR GARRETT COUNTY
                                                 AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY
                                                 APPELLANT.

                                            13