Griffin v. Lindsey
119 A.3d 753
Md.2015Background
- Crime victims in Maryland are not formal parties but have statutory rights such as restitution under CP §11-603 and procedural avenues under CP §11-103.
- Griffin’s plea agreement with the State excluded restitution and represented the full agreement of the parties.
- Lindsey sought $9,700 in restitution for Lindsey against Griffin; the plea terms did not provide restitution and Griffin had satisfied his plea obligations.
- Griffin was sentenced on January 13, 2012 with no restitution ordered, in accordance with the plea agreement.
- Lindsey timely filed a CP §11-103(e) motion for reconsideration on February 13, 2012; the circuit court denied it on March 7, 2012, citing the plea agreement and constitutional concerns.
- Lindsey filed an Application for Leave to Appeal on April 5, 2012; the Court of Special Appeals ruled Lindsey’s Application could proceed despite the 30-day rule tied to the initial sentencing judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CP §11-103(b) authorizes a crime victim to appeal the denial of a CP §11-103(e) motion | Lindsey relies on CP §11-103(e) connectivity to §11-603, arguing the denial is a right-secured denial appealable under §11-103(b) | Griffin argues §11-103(b) limits appeals to enumerated rights and does not include reconsideration denials | No; §11-103(b) does not confer a right to appeal the denial of a CP §11-103(e) motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoile v. State, 404 Md. 591 (Md. 2008) (recognizes victim rights and non-party status in criminal proceedings; discusses restitution rights)
- Rush v. State, 403 Md. 68 (Md. 2008) (strictly construes appeal rights and favors narrow reading of statutes granting appellate rights)
- Chmurny v. State, 392 Md. 159 (Md. 2006) (timeliness of appeal from final judgment; cannot use late reconsideration to bypass 30-day rule)
- Lopez-Sanchez v. State, 388 Md. 214 (Md. 2005) (existence of victim appellate rights derived from statute; statutory context matters)
- Howard Cnty. v. JJM, Inc., 301 Md. 256 (Md. 1984) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle in statutory interpretation)
- State v. Manck, 385 Md. 581 (Md. 2005) (limits on which trial decisions are appealable; necessity of explicit authorization)