Hill v. State
20 A.3d 780
Md.2011Background
- Hill, Alston, and Yates were sentenced to springing start dates, with jail terms to begin 3–5 years after sentencing.
- Judges informed them they could have their sentences vacated if they stayed out of trouble and returned before the start date.
- Each failed to report on the start date and pled guilty to second degree escape.
- Montgomery v. State (2008) invalidated similar springing sentences, prompting petitions to vacate the escape convictions.
- Circuit court denied vacatur; Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the case was granted certiorari to address validity of escape when underlying sentence was invalid.
- The Court of Appeals held that the escape convictions were valid despite Montgomery, and that illegality of the underlying sentence is not a defense to escape.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an escape conviction valid when predicated on failure to report to a court-ordered start date later deemed illegal? | Hill/Alston/Yates contend underlying springing sentence invalidates the escape conviction. | State argues failure to report violates CL 9-405, separately sustaining escape regardless of underlying sentence validity. | Escape convictions affirmed; failure to report supports escape even if sentence later invalid. |
| Does illegality of the underlying sentence provide a defense to escape under CL 9-405? | Petitioners argue illegality of underlying sentence nullifies responsibility for failing to report. | State contends illegality is not a defense to escape; self-help is improper even if underlying sentence is flawed. | Illegality of underlying sentence is not a defense to escape. |
| Did Montgomery's retroactivity affect the validity of the escape convictions as defenses to petitioners' reports? | Petitioners rely on Montgomery to void their related actions as void ab initio. | State argues Montgomery does not authorize self-help or retroactive relief from escape convictions. | Montgomery does not permit self-help or retroactive relief; convictions stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 405 Md. 67 (Md. 2008) (invalidated certain springing sentences and discussed stay provisions)
- Boffen v. State, 372 Md. 724 (Md. 2003) (defined custody for escape; rejected defense based on illegality of underlying detention)
- Vucci v. State, 18 Md.App. 157 (Md. Ct. App. 1973) (escape convictions valid despite defects in detention procedures)
- Jennings v. State, 8 Md.App. 321 (Md. Ct. App. 1969) (escape convictions valid even if underlying procedures defective)
- Rodgers v. State, 280 Md. 406 (Md. 1977) (cannot resist lawfully issued arrests; compliance with orders required)
- Ford v. State, 237 Md. 266 (Md. 1965) (constructive custody while in transit; prison custody distinctions)