Dietrich v. State
174 A.3d 948
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- In 1994 Dietrich pleaded guilty in Virginia to multiple counts of aggravated sexual battery and related offenses arising from acts in 1993; Virginia required lifetime registration for those offenses and he was registered in 1994.
- Dietrich was released after serving 15 years and in March 2009 moved to Maryland, where he completed supervised probation and registered under Maryland law as a child sexual offender based on his Virginia lifetime-registration status.
- Maryland’s sex-offender law was enacted in 1995, amended in 1998, and substantially amended in 2009–2010 (including creation of a Tier III lifetime-registration category).
- In August 2015 Dietrich sued the State in Baltimore City Circuit Court seeking declaratory relief that he should not have to register and that retroactive application of later amendments violated Article 17 (ex post facto) and other rights; the circuit court granted the State summary judgment.
- On appeal Dietrich argued the Maryland registration requirement (1) violated Article 17’s prohibition on ex post facto laws (relying on Doe I) and (2) violated his right to interstate travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause; the travel claim was raised below only at summary judgment.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding Maryland’s registration duty was triggered by Dietrich’s move to Maryland while already subject to a lifetime registration duty in Virginia, so the statute was not applied retroactively; the interstate-travel claim was unpreserved and not reviewed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland’s registration requirement as applied to Dietrich violated Article 17 (ex post facto) | Dietrich: retroactive application of later Maryland amendments (2009/2010) impermissibly increased his obligations because his offense predated the Maryland Act | State: Dietrich was already subject to a lifetime registration in Virginia when he moved; Maryland law applied based on his move, not the date of offense, so not retroactive | Held: No ex post facto violation — obligation triggered by move to Maryland while already under lifetime registration in Virginia; Maryland imposed no additional punishment |
| Whether Maryland’s requirement violated right to interstate travel (Privileges and Immunities Clause) | Dietrich: being forced to register solely because of prior out-of-state registry infringes interstate-travel rights | State: claim not pleaded below (thus not preserved) and not addressed on the merits | Held: Unpreserved; appellate court declined to review the interstate-travel claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 430 Md. 535 (Md. 2013) (plurality holding that certain retroactive application of 2009–2010 amendments violated Article 17)
- Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Doe, 439 Md. 201 (Md. 2014) (discussing standard of review and statutory scheme updates)
- In re Nick H., 224 Md. App. 668 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (sex-offender registration treated as nonpunitive in certain contexts)
- La Belle Epoque, LLC v. Old Europe Antique Manor, LLC, 406 Md. 194 (Md. 2008) (summary-judgment standard on undisputed facts)
- Young v. State, 370 Md. 686 (Md. 2002) (context on punitive vs. regulatory effects of sex-offender laws)
- State v. Zerbe, 50 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. 2016) (upholding registration duty based on prior out-of-state registry; obligation triggered by prior registry, not original offense)