Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. 03-K-12-007003
Nazarian, Arthur, Beachley, JJ.
Kimble was charged on November 9, 2012 with sexual abuse of a
minor and related offenses. His trial was postponed several
times, and the Circuit Court for Baltimore County eventually
found him incompetent to stand trial.
November 13, 2017, Mr. Kimble filed a motion to dismiss the
charges. He argued that Maryland Code, § 3-107(a) of the
Criminal Procedure Article ("CP") requires
dismissal when the defendant has been found incompetent to
stand trial and more than five years have passed from the
date the charges were filed. The circuit court denied Mr.
Kimble's motion on the ground that the five-year time
period runs from the date of the incompetency finding, not
from the date the charges were filed, and that the time
period had not yet elapsed. Mr. Kimble appeals, and we
2014-approximately two years after Mr. Kimble had been
charged, and after his trial had been postponed twice while
counsel had him evaluated-the circuit court ordered the
Department of Health to evaluate his competency to stand
trial. Based on the Department's report, the court on
September 2, 2014 found Mr. Kimble incompetent to stand trial
("IST"), found him dangerous, and committed him to
the custody of the Department.
review hearing on April 3, 2015, the court found that Mr.
Kimble remained IST but no longer was dangerous, and the
court released him subject to continued treatment. Several
months later, the court held another status hearing, and
found that Mr. Kimble was still IST and "fully
compliant" with his treatment plan.
Kimble's annual review hearing on April 1, 2016, the
court considered the Department's most recent evaluation
and found that Mr. Kimble remained incompetent to stand
trial. In the context of scheduling the next status hearing,
the parties and the court agreed that it should be set close
to the "dismissal date," which all appeared to
assume was five years from the date Mr. Kimble was charged:
THE COURT: All right. Good morning. Okay. [Mr. Kimble]'s
in for his annual review and I do have a report from the
Department. Has counsel received that?
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: I have, Your Honor.
STATE: As has the State, yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Any comments or anything?
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, in this report, the
Department opines that Mr. Kimble, at this point, is both,
remains incompetent to stand trial and also cannot be
restored to competency in the foreseeable future.
THE COURT: Right.
[DEFEDNANT'S COUNSEL]: I would ask that the Court set the
next date at the dismissal date, which at this point --
THE COURT: Okay.
[DEFEDNANT'S COUNSEL]: -- is, by my calculation, he was
charged originally in November of 2012, so in the December
THE COURT: Okay. So, December 2017, if we have that status 
conference at that time, that would be the dismissal date.
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: And, at this point, I, you know, I
don't think setting another status conference --
THE COURT: Is going to change anything.
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: -- is going to change anything and
just make the Department do another evaluation and, quite
frankly, I think they need the time, to spend the time on,
for having seen some of the other ones today --
THE COURT: Other things.
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: -- doing a little more --
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: -- psychological testing with the
time that they do have.
THE COURT: Perhaps. Okay. Does the State have anything to
contribute or --
STATE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: -- suggest? I mean, it makes perfect sense to me,
that we would not do another annual review. I mean, I do
think that the, that the statute does require an annual
review, but this isn't, 2017 isn't pushing, even
though it's December, it's not pushing it back that
much further than we would normally see him, so I think this
is fine. It's actually December the 1st.
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: That would be perfect.
THE COURT: So, 12/1 of 2017 will be his annual review and
that will be his dismissal date.
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Okay.
THE COURT: I'll note that on my calendar. All right,
we'll see you then.
[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Keep up the good work, sir.
a year and a half went by, and on November 13, 2017, Mr.
Kimble filed a motion to dismiss. He argued that the
five-year time limit set forth in CP § 3-107(a) required
the court to dismiss his charges. The court held a hearing on
the motion on December 1, 2017, at which the State argued
that dismissal was not required. Although five years had
passed since the charges were filed, the State argued that
the time period begins on the date he was found IST, not the
date he was ...