Page 73
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Case Nos. 03-C-18-006040
& 03-K-16-006061, Mickey J. Norman, Judge.
Argued
by Piedad Gomez (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the
brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Argued
by Benjamin A. Harris (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the
brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Panel:
Fader, C.J., Gould, Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. (Senior Judge,
Specially Assigned), JJ.
OPINION
Gould,
J.
[242
Md.App. 634] Appellant Pablo Javier Aleman pleaded guilty to
the second-degree murder of his former landlord, for which a
Baltimore County jury found him not criminally responsible
("NCR"). Ordinarily, a finding of
NCR would require the court to commit the defendant to the
Maryland Department of Health ("Department of
Health"), which in turn would admit him
Page 74
to an appropriate facility for the evaluation and treatment
of any mental illnesses.
This
was no ordinary case. Mr. Aleman had been serving a prison
sentence in Ohio when Maryland took temporary custody of him
under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers
("IAD") for the limited purpose of
trying him for the Maryland charges. Under the IAD, once the
Maryland trial was over, Marylands temporary custody over
Mr. Aleman ended and it was required to promptly return him
to Ohio.
Understandably, Mr. Aleman would prefer to be evaluated and,
if necessary, treated for any mental disorders in Maryland
[242 Md.App. 635] rather than be incarcerated in Ohio. To
this end, he argues that the statutory obligation to commit
him to the Department of Health supersedes any obligation
Maryland may otherwise have under the IAD to return him to
Ohio. In support of his argument, Mr. Aleman points to a
provision of the IAD that specifies that none of its
provisions or remedies shall apply to a prisoner who is
adjudged to be mentally ill.
This
appeal emerges from the intersection of these seemingly
conflicting statutes and requires us to consider what happens
when a prisoner— who has invoked the benefit of a
speedy trial in Maryland made possible by the IAD— is
then adjudged to have been mentally ill at the time he
committed the crime in that state. We find that here, the IAD
still applies to Mr. Aleman notwithstanding the jurys
finding of NCR, and Maryland, having had only temporary
custody of Mr. Aleman, must return him to Ohio as required by
the IAD. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment of the
circuit court.
BACKGROUND
I. THE UNDERLYING CASE
In
early 2016, Mr. Aleman fatally stabbed his former landlord at
the latters home in Baltimore County. He then fled Maryland.
Two weeks later, in Ohio, Mr. Aleman had an altercation with
the police during which he threatened an officer with a
knife. The officer shot Mr. Aleman to disarm and apprehend
him. Mr. Aleman was heard to say, "I dont want to kill
somebody else. [ ] I wanted the officer to kill me." An
Ohio jury convicted Mr. Aleman of felonious assault,
resulting in an eleven-year prison sentence.
Maryland
authorities notified Ohio of the charges still pending in
Maryland by way of a "detainer." As a result, Mr.
Aleman filed a request under the IAD to face trial for the
murder charges pending against him in Maryland. In requesting
disposition of the Maryland charges, Mr. Aleman signed an
agreement stating that he "consent[s] to be ...
returned" to Ohio after trial. Upon his return to
Maryland, Mr. Aleman asserted a plea of NCR and then pleaded
guilty to second [242 Md.App. 636] degree murder. From the
results of an examination ordered by the circuit court
pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. ("CP") §
3-111(a) (2001, 2018 Repl. Vol.),[1] the circuit court
determined that Mr. Aleman was competent to stand trial.
Mr.
Alemans plea of NCR was tried by a jury on May 31, 2018. The
jury found that he was NCR at the time of the murder, and the
court entered an order committing him to the Department of
Health.
Local
officials refused to transport Mr. Aleman to the Department
of Health
Page 75
facility, and instead "prepared to return him to
Ohio" pursuant to the IAD. Mr. Aleman filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his continued
confinement in the local detention center, arguing that he
should have been committed to the Department of Health
instead. The court denied the habeas corpus petition and
determined that Mr. Aleman should be sent back to
Ohio.[2] The court stayed its prior order of
commitment to the Department of Health but enjoined Maryland
from returning him to Ohio pending this appeal.[3]
[242
Md.App. 637] II. THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON
DETAINERS
Before
addressing the parties specific arguments, and to place the
parties contentions in their appropriate context, we first
briefly address the history and framework of the IAD. The IAD
is an interstate compact designed to facilitate the orderly
disposition of detainers. A "detainer" is "a
notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner
is serving a sentence, advising that he is wanted to face
pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction."
State v. Pair, 416 Md. 157, 161 n.2, 5 A.3d 1090
(2010) (citing Stone v. State, 344 Md. 97, 108, 685
A.2d 441 (1996)). Prior to the IAD, unresolved detainers were
known to complicate the prisoners ability to fully
participate in the rehabilitative, educational, and
vocational services and programs offered by the incarcerating
institution. State v. Jefferson, 319 Md. 674,
679-80, 574 A.2d 918 (1990) (citing Carchman v.
Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 730, 105 S.Ct. 3401, 87 L.Ed.2d 516
(1985)). Such problems were described by the Court of Appeals
in Jefferson :
[T]he inmate is (1) deprived of an opportunity to obtain a
sentence to run concurrently with the sentence being served
at the time the detainer is filed; (2) classified as a
maximum or close custody risk; (3) ineligible for initial
assignments to less than maximum security prisons (i.e.,
honor farms or forestry camp work); (4) ineligible for
trustee status; (5) not allowed to live in preferred living
quarters such as dormitories; (6) ineligible for
study-release programs or work-release programs; (7)
ineligible to be transferred to preferred medium or minimum
custody institutions within the correctional system, which
includes the removal of any possibility of transfer to an
institution more appropriate for youthful offenders; (8) not
entitled to preferred prison jobs which carry higher wages
and entitle [him] to additional good time credits against
[his] sentence; (9) inhibited by the [242 Md.App. 638] denial
of possibility
Page 76
of parole or any commutation of his sentence; (10) caused
anxiety and thus hindered in the overall rehabilitation
process since he cannot take maximum advantage of his
institutional opportunities.
Id.
In
1956, the Council of State Governments drafted what would
become the IAD to address such problems. Pair, 416
Md. at 160, 5 A.3d 1090. The IAD took the form of a
congressionally-sanctioned compact between its member
states.[4]Id. Maryland adopted the IAD
in 1965, and it has been adopted by forty-eight states, the
Federal Government, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the District of Columbia. Id. Under the IAD, the
states agreed to limit their authority over certain prisoners
in exchange for the right to quickly dispose of untried
indictments of defendants serving time in other states.
See Thomas R. Clark, The Effect of Violations of
...