Submitted by: Daniel Kobrin (Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD for Appellant.
Submitted by: Susannah Prucka (Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD for Appellee.
Meredith, Kehoe, Kenney, James A., III (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Kenney, J.
[219 Md.App. 444]
On November 9, 2010, the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, sitting as a juvenile court, found appellant, Tavon T., involved in theft under $100. On January 6, 2011, the court adopted the Master's recommendations
and placed appellant on probation supervised by the Department of Juvenile Services (" DJS" ) with specific terms and conditions. For approximately two years the disposition remained the same.
At a review hearing on March 5, 2013, DJS requested that appellant's commitment be terminated and that his case be closed unsuccessfully. The Master agreed, finding that " the Respondent no longer requires the Court's guidance, treatment, and rehabilitation" and " recommend[ed] rescinding his commitment and closing the case unsuccessfully, terminating the Court's jurisdiction and sealing the file." The Master's formal findings of fact and recommendations, filed on March 7, 2013, were, as follows:
This matter was called for a review hearing. After consideration of all the evidence, proffers and argument presented at the hearing, modification to the existing Court-Ordered disposition is recommended at this time. Respondent's updated school records and mental health records were submitted in Court on March 5, 2013. He attends mental health treatment at the Wicomico County Health Department but the report shows that he is not compliant with their recommendations.
Respondent is 18 years old and has been under supervision since December 2010. He completed anger management, has never had a positive urinalysis, and owes no [219 Md.App. 445] restitution. Currently, Respondent has 23 unexcused absences in school. Respondent's mental health treatment is not a condition of his STAYED commitment; rather it is because his guardian felt he needed it. The Department of Juvenile Services requested that this case be unsuccessfully terminated. They feel that they have exhausted all resources and can no longer provide any for Respondent. The Court agrees. It is recommended Respondent's commitment be rescinded and that his case be unsuccessfully terminated.
Respondent no longer requires the Court's guidance, treatment, and rehabilitation.
On March 20, 2013, the court denied the Master's recommendations, scheduled a hearing before another circuit court judge, with a notation " make mental health [treatment] a condition of [appellant's] supervision." Appellant filed a timely appeal and presents two questions for review:
1. Did the court err in failing to timely deny the Master's findings of fact and recommendations, as required by Rule 11-111(d)?
2. Did the court err in remanding the case to a Master for further hearing when such action is not permitted by § 3-807 of the Maryland Code (2002 Repl. ...