Kimble v. State, 213 A.3d 727

Jermaine Kimble was charged in November 2012 with sexual abuse of a minor and related offenses; his trial was repeatedly postponed for competency evaluations.
The circuit court ordered a competency evaluation in June 2014 and found Kimble incompetent to stand trial (IST) on September 2, 2014; he was committed to the Department of Health.
Annual/status reviews in 2015 and April 1, 2016 found Kimble remained IST and likely unrestorable in the foreseeable future.
Defense and court assumed a five-year dismissal "date" tied to the 2012 charging date and scheduled a dismissal-status hearing for December 1, 2017.
Kimble moved to dismiss on November 13, 2017, arguing CP § 3-107(a) required dismissal because more than five years had elapsed since his 2012 charging date; the State argued the five-year period runs from the date of the IST finding (2014).
The circuit court denied the motion; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding the statutory time period runs from the date the defendant is found IST.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does CP § 3-107(a)’s dismissal clock start for a defendant found IST?	Kimble: clock starts when defendant is charged (date of indictment/charging).	State: clock starts when defendant is found incompetent to stand trial.	Court: statute ambiguous but, based on history, structure, and purpose, clock runs from the IST finding.

Deville v. State, 383 Md. 217 (interpreting statutory ambiguity principles)
Ray v. State, 410 Md. 384 (analyzing incompetency statutes and history)
State v. Ray, 429 Md. 566 (explaining purpose of CP § 3-107 time limits and that dismissals reflect unrestorability)
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (due process limits on indefinite commitment of IST defendants)
Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519 (standard of de novo review for legal questions)
Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488 (statutory interpretation framework)
Bellard v. State, 452 Md. 467 (rule of lenity and statutory construction)