61 A.3d 87
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Lambert assaulted his wife on September 26, 2009, allegedly pushing her; she fell and suffered head and abdominal injuries.
- Lambert pleaded guilty to second-degree assault on March 24, 2010 and was sentenced April 15, 2010 to three years’ confinement, all suspended, with three years’ supervised probation.
- The trial court imposed a special probation condition prohibiting any contact with Mrs. Lambert due to a pattern of domestic violence.
- An August 2010 motion for reconsideration was denied; an anonymous tip revealed daily phone communications with Mrs. Lambert in May 2010, leading to a probation-violation charge in September 2010.
- Lambert moved under Rule 4-345 to correct the sentence as illegal; on November 22, 2010 the court found a violation of probation, reimposed the suspended sentence and probation to end November 22, 2013, and Lambert timely appealed in December 2010.
- Question presented: whether a three-year no-contact probation condition with the wife, who wished to reconcile, is illegal; the court answered no and affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether no-contact probation condition is legally permissible | Lambert argues no rational basis and improper considerations | Lambert's no-contact condition is reasonably related to protecting the victim and rehabilitating the offender | No; no-contact condition is permissible and rational |
| Whether no-contact violates the marital right to marry | Lambert asserts it burdens the right to marriage | State's interest in safety and rehabilitation justifies the restriction | No; not unconstitutional under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Poe v. State, 341 Md. 523 (1996) (trial court discretion in sentencing; conditions must be reasonable and rational)
- Watson v. State, 17 Md.App. 263 (1973) (probation conditions must have a rational basis)
- State v. Conkle, 129 Ohio App.3d 177 (1998) (no-contact probation upheld when related to DV prevention)
- Jennings v. State, 339 Md. 675 (1995) (state interest in punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation can justify restrictions)
- State v. Guill, 248 P.3d 826 (Mont. 2011) (no-contact provision upheld given danger to victim and need for rehabilitation)