Campbell v. State
177 A.3d 80
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Mark Campbell (Senior Airman, Maryland resident) pled guilty in a 2014 court-martial to two counts of child sexual abuse under the UCMJ and, on release, was ordered to register as a Tier II sex offender in Maryland for 25 years.
- On December 10, 2015, Campbell filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking a determination whether his military convictions would trigger Maryland registration requirements.
- The State answered; Campbell filed a First Amended Complaint; the State responded. The State later moved for summary judgment and Judge Alfred Nance granted it on July 26, 2016.
- Campbell appealed, asking this Court to decide on the substantive comparison between the federal military offenses and Maryland offenses (i.e., whether Maryland registration is required).
- The appellate record extract omitted key materials: the State’s summary judgment motion, the original Complaint, the First Amended Complaint, and the parties’ briefing/arguments — leaving the basis for the trial court’s summary judgment unclear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether military convictions, if committed in Maryland, avoid Tier II registration by virtue of dissimilarity between federal and Maryland offenses | Campbell: military offenses are legally dissimilar to Maryland offenses and thus should not trigger registration | State: (not fully shown in record) moved for summary judgment (likely asserting procedural or substantive defects in declaratory claim) | Not reached on merits — appeal affirmed because appellant failed to supply the record showing basis for summary judgment; tie goes to status quo |
| Whether a declaratory judgment action was the proper procedural vehicle to challenge collateral registration requirement in a criminal case | Campbell implicitly assumes declaratory relief was appropriate to get a merits ruling comparing offenses | State arguably challenged the procedural sufficiency/availability of declaratory relief (issues not in appellant’s brief or extract) | Court emphasizes declaratory-judgment procedural requirements may bar this route (citing authority); appellant failed to address or preserve these issues |
| Whether appellate court can review summary judgment when appellant’s extract omits critical documents and arguments | Campbell failed to include pleadings and motion papers necessary for review | State presumably relied on record; court lacks information to review trial court’s ruling | Court will presume trial court acted correctly when appellant omits necessary portions of the record; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Braun v. Ford Motor Company, 32 Md. App. 545, 363 A.2d 562 (1976) (appellate reversal limited to prejudicial judicial error; parties’ actions do not constitute trial error)
- Griffin v. Anne Arundel County, 25 Md. App. 115, 333 A.2d 612 (1975) (declaratory judgment petition may be resolved on summary judgment)
- Master v. Master, 223 Md. 618, 166 A.2d 251 (1960) (pleading for declaratory relief requires more than a mere prayer; jurisdictional/pleading sufficiency matters)
- Sinclair v. State, 199 Md. App. 130, 20 A.3d 192 (2011) (a declaratory judgment petition may not be filed in a criminal cause to challenge a collateral consequence of a final conviction)
- Edmund v. State, 398 Md. 562, 921 A.2d 264 (2007) (limitations on procedural mechanisms available to criminal defendants seeking collateral relief)
- Case v. Comptroller of Maryland, 219 Md. 282, 149 A.2d 6 (1959) (when declaratory judgment is decided, the judgment ordinarily should include a declaration defining the parties’ rights)
- Medley v. State, 52 Md. App. 225, 448 A.2d 363 (1982) (discussion of appellate review limitations)
- Howell v. State, 56 Md. App. 675, 468 A.2d 688 (1983) (similar limitations on appellate review and the necessity of a properly developed record)