United States District Court, D. Maryland
William M. Nickerson Senior United States District Judge.
answer to the above-captioned Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Respondents assert that the petition must be
dismissed because Petitioner is lawfully confined, he has not
named the proper Respondent, and has failed to exhaust state
remedies. ECF 9. The petition shall be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
offer the following background concerning Plaintiffs current
confinement and state criminal convictions. In April of 2011,
Petitioner was charged with indecent exposure, resisting
arrest, and disorderly conduct in the Circuit Court for
Harford County. He was found not competent to stand trial and
the charges for indecent exposure and disorderly conduct were
placed on the stet docket. The court imposed probation before
judgment on the charge of resisting arrest. ECF 9 at Ex. 1,
October 11, 2012, the Maryland State Fire Marshall responded
to a fire at Petitioner's home, where he had been
evacuated. Upon questioning. Petitioner told firefighters he
had set the fire himself "to rid the house of evil
spirits." Petitioner was hospitalized at Bayview Medical
Center and four days later was involuntarily committed to
Sheppard Pratt Hospital. He was treated with Haldol, an
anti-psychotic medication, to decrease his psychotic
symptoms. ECF 9 at Ex. 1, pp. 3-4.
was discharged from Sheppard Pratt on November 2, 2012 and
began outpatient treatment at a mental health treatment
facility. His participation continued until March of 2014.
Id. at pp. 4-5. On March 28, 2014, Petitioner was
charged with exposing his genitals to children playing at a
McDonald's restaurant. He remained confined in the
Harford County Detention Center until April 30, 2014, when he
entered an Alford plea and was found not criminally
responsible for charges of arson in the first degree and was
committed to the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene. Id. at p. 5, see also ECF 9 at Ex.
6. Petitioner's charges for indecent exposure occurring
on March 28. 2014, are still pending and a hearing regarding
his competency was scheduled for July of this year. ECF 9 at
Ex. 2, p. 2.
on the verdict of not criminally responsible for the first
degree arson charges, Petitioner remains confined at Clifton
T. Perkins Hospital for treatment in accordance with Md.
Crim. Proc, Code Ann. §3-112(a). See ECF 9 at
Ex. 5 (pre-trial evaluation). In June of 2014, the Forensic
Review Board at Perkins Hospital determined that Petitioner
remains dangerous and requires hospitalization because of
"active symptoms, lack of understanding of his need for
long-term treatment, and his risk of violence in the
community, history of treatment non-compliance and failure of
court ordered treatment." Id. at Ex. 3. In
September of 2015, Petitioner was the subject of a Clinical
Review Panel proceeding following his refusal to voluntarily
take medication to treat his bipolar disorder with psychotic
features. Id. at Ex. 4. During that proceeding
Petitioner maintained he no longer had bipolar disorder, that
his psychiatrist was blackmailing him. and voiced persecutory
delusions involving his psychiatrist, the pre-trial
evaluator, and his attorney. Id. at p. 2.
has not presented the claims asserted in the instant petition
to the state courts. Respondents state that, at the time the
answer was filed, Petitioner had a motion pending in the
Circuit Court for Harford County seeking to vacate the
verdict in his arson conviction. ECF 9 at Ex. 7 and 8. That
motion seeks to introduce "evidence" that
Petitioner did not set the fire. Id. at Ex.8.
claims asserted in this Court, however, are more broad than
the claim partially presented to the state court. Petitioner
asserts: he was misguided by defense counsel: his Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated; he was denied a
jury trial and open court proceedings; and that defense
counsel was misguided by the State's Attorney. ECF 1 at
p. 6. None of these asserted claims have been presented to
the state courts. When filing a federal habeas corpus
application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a petitioner must
show that all of his claims have been presented to the state
courts. 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) and (c); see also Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491 (1973). This exhaustion
requirement is satisfied by seeking review of the claim in
the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider it. For
a person convicted of a criminal offense in Maryland this may
be accomplished either on direct appeal or in post-conviction
exhaust a claim on direct appeal in non-capital cases, it
must be raised in an appeal, if one is permitted, to the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals and then to the Maryland
Court of Appeals by way of a petition for writ of certiorari.
See Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann., §
12-201 and§ 12-301.
appeal of right is not permitted, as in cases where a guilty
plea is entered, exhaustion can be accomplished by filing an
application for leave to appeal to the Court of Special
Appeals. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann., §
12-302(e). If the Court of Special Appeals denies the
application, there is no further review available and the
claim is exhausted. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann.,
§ 12-202. However, if the application is granted but
relief on the merits of the claim is denied, the petitioner
must file a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of
Appeals. Williams v. State, 292 Md. 201, 210-11
exhaust a claim through post-conviction proceedings, it must
be raised in a petition filed in the Circuit Court and in an
application for leave to appeal to the Court of Special
Appeals. Md. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. § 7-109. If the Court
of Special Appeals denies the application, there is no
further review available and the claim is exhausted. Md. Cts.
& Jud. Proc. Code Ann., § 12-202. However, if the
application is granted but relief on the merits of the claim
is denied, the petitioner must file a petition for writ of
certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Williams, supra.
a showing that the claims asserted in the petition have been
exhausted, this Court is without jurisdiction to rule on the
merits of those claims. Thus, the instant petition must be
dismissed without prejudice and a ...