Brookman & Carnes v. State
158 A.3d 1099
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Montgomery County Adult Drug Court is a post‑conviction, problem‑solving program that places participants on special probation conditions, requires random urinalysis, and uses a written Participant Handbook and Menu of Sanctions (including overnight incarceration) for violations.
- Participants sign a Drug Court Agreement acknowledging possible sanctions and expressly reserving the right to request a formal adversarial hearing before imposition of a sanction of incarceration or termination from the program.
- Crystal Brookman: pleading guilty to theft, placed on supervised probation with Drug Court as a condition; while in Phase 3 two urine tests showed low creatinine (one treated as a positive), and Drug Court imposed immediate sanctions including overnight incarceration after denying a continuance and an adversarial hearing.
- Marvin Carnes: pleaded guilty to theft/identity theft, placed on probation conditioned on Drug Court completion; missed (or was credited with missing) a urinalysis due to a scheduling/transportation issue, reported soon after and tested negative, but Drug Court treated the missed test as a positive and imposed immediate sanctions (overnight incarceration), denying a full adversarial hearing.
- Both filed timely appeals arguing: (1) Drug Court sanctions that deprive liberty or extend program participation are appealable; and (2) Drug Court breached due process by imposing immediate incarceration without an adversarial hearing as required by court protocols and Maryland Rule (then Rule 16-206, now 16-207).
- The Court of Special Appeals consolidated the appeals, held the sanctions were appealable, found the Drug Court denied both appellants their due process right to an adversarial hearing before incarceration, vacated the sanctions, and remanded for proceedings consistent with Rule 16-207(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Drug Court sanctions that deprive liberty or extend program participation appealable? | Brookman/Carnes: Yes — analogous to probation revocation; final enough to permit appeal. | State: No — sanctions under Drug Court are internal/programmatic, not final judgments; no statutory right to appeal. | Held: Yes — sanctions that deprive liberty or extend program participation are appealable like probation revocations; participants have right to appeal. |
| Does due process require an adversarial hearing before imposition of immediate incarceration under Drug Court rules? | Brookman/Carnes: Yes — Drug Court Agreement, Participant Handbook, and Rule 16-206 required notice, counsel, and an adversarial hearing before incarceration. | State: No — Drug Court complied by allowing counsel to be heard; immediacy of sanctions is central to program effectiveness and some informality is permitted. | Held: Yes — where sanction involves loss of liberty, participants must receive notice, opportunity to be heard, and counsel; Drug Court denied both appellants adequate adversarial hearings, so sanctions vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 409 Md. 1 (recognizing appealability considerations for problem‑solving court orders)
- Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (defining final‑judgment concepts and whether further court action is expected)
- In re Billy W., 386 Md. 675 (clarifying when a judgment concludes rights and becomes final)
- DiMeglio v. State, 201 Md. App. 287 (treating DUI/drug court sanctions as analogous to probation sanctions)
- Russell v. State, 221 Md. App. 518 (orders modifying probation conditions are final and appealable)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (probation revocation requires procedural due process)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (parole revocation due process principles)