Retention of the Court's Jurisdiction after Conditional Release of Individual Found Not Criminally Responsible

Facts of the Case

On June 15, 1999, Mr. Harrison-Solomon pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree assault. The Circuit Court of Prince George's County found him not criminally responsible, committing him to inpatient treatment within the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. After nine months, he was released on a three-year OCR. The OCR outlined specific guidelines: for example, that he remain on medications, reside with his mother, submit to urine drug screens, and receive his therapist's written approval for various decisions.

On December 21, 2001, Mr. Harrison-Solomon was again indicted, this time for attempted murder, armed robbery, and weapon offenses. Consequently, the circuit court rescinded his previous OCR and recommitted him to inpatient treatment. On December 12, 2002, a jury found him not criminally responsible.

In July 2006, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conditionally released Mr. Harrison-Solomon. The facial duration of this order was through July 3, 2011. Slightly over three years after the conditional release, the state petitioned to revoke his OCR because he had violated its guidelines. The state's petition was granted, and Mr. Harrison-Solomon was once again committed to inpatient treatment.

On June 15, 2010, the circuit court ordered Mr. Harrison-Solomon's release per an ALJ's recommendation. The ALJ found that even though Mr. Harrison-Solomon had violated the 2006 OCR, at the present time, he did not appear to pose a threat to himself or others. Accordingly, Mr. Harrison-Solomon was released conditionally for the remaining duration of the 2006 order.

Five days before the expiration of the 2006 OCR, the state filed for an application to extend it by four years. The state also submitted a physician's examination noting perfect attendance and compliance with treatment recommendations. However, during the evaluation, Mr. Harrison-Solomon stated that he intended to abandon psychiatric treatment so that his mind would be “free to think.” The physician recommended against terminating the OCR. The application for a four-year extension was granted without a hearing, nearly two months after the facial expiration of the 2006 OCR.

Mr. Harrison-Solomon contended that, because his OCR had expired, the court no longer maintained jurisdiction over him. The state's position was that the application was filed before the expiration date and thus was valid.

On November 10, 2011, the circuit court held that Maryland CP § 3–122 did not impose a mandatory deadline or timeline for the court to rule on an application that was timely filed. On these grounds, the court denied Mr. Harrison-Solomon's motion. He then appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, arguing that the circuit court's order to extend was in fact not an extension but a “revival,” given its earlier expiration. The special appeals court affirmed the lower court, citing the Maryland legislature's intent and an Illinois decision. The court held that, considering that the application was filed before the expiration, the court would retain jurisdiction over the case. Mr. Harrison-Solomon was granted a writ of certiorari by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Ruling and Reasoning

The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed both lower courts' rulings. Justice Harrell delivered the opinion of the court, which took into consideration two aspects of the case: the intent of the Maryland legislature and due process requirements. Examining the text of Md. Code Ann., Crim Proc. § 3–122 (2008), the court examined the use of various terms in the statute, such as “anytime,” “shall,” and “extend.” It held that, although extend has been defined as to continue or prolong, the courts often prolong or extend a deadline retrospectively, adding that retrospective extensions are recognized in both Maryland and federal jurisdictions. Anytime is not ambiguous and indicates that the provision is mandatory, the court said. Thus, the Maryland legislature's intent was that the state or department could propose a change to an OCR whenever it felt it necessary, so long as the proposal was filed during the life of the order. The court recognized that the ruling must be returned within a reasonable time.

The court also considered the legislative history. Regarding a Senate bill that was passed in 1984, the court noted that the state's intention was to make it more difficult for defendants to raise an insanity defense and to make it easier for the state to maintain restrictions on those found not criminally responsible. The state was driven by a desire to ensure protection of the public from inappropriate release and discharge of those found not criminally responsible.

The court reviewed the question of reinstating a condition after a long hiatus, recognizing that, although a conditional release may be necessary, it would in fact limit one's autonomy. To have a period of living without conditions only to be followed by a reinstatement of previously outlined conditions could appear harsh. Mr. Harrison-Solomon had argued that an OCR is similar to a sentence of probation and therefore the end date should be similarly treated. The court responded that, although one may see the cursory similarities, the fundamental purpose, treatment, is different from punishment.

Considering the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and its counterpart in Maryland's Declaration of Rights, the court found there to be no violation. It held that the state filed the application within the time frame of the 2006 OCR and that Mr. Harrison-Solomon and his counsel were made aware of the application. The Circuit Court ruled on the application 64 days after its filing, after making attempts to contact both parties to expedite its ruling. Therefore, a decision made on a timely filed application given after the order's expiration does not ipso facto violate due process, so long as it is given within a reasonable time. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.