McDaniel v. State
205 Md. App. 551
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- McDaniel was convicted by a Washington County Circuit Court jury of second-degree assault in July 2010 and received a suspended sentence with probation.
- As a probation condition, he was ordered to pay $4,000 restitution to the victim and $297 to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
- The victim, Andrew Robinson, testified that McDaniel struck him with a handgun, knocked out a tooth, and an ensuing fight required police intervention.
- The State presented medical and dental records; defense claimed self-defense and that McDaniel did not own or use a handgun.
- At sentencing, the court indicated restitution was a primary concern and set payments on probation, at least $1,000 per year.
- On appeal, McDaniel challenged the restitution order as exceeding authority and argued an inability-to-pay issue, which the court held waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution for future dental losses was authorized | McDaniel contends losses future to occur are not expenses yet; unconstitutional. | State argues statute authorizes losses, not just existing expenses; broadens restitution. | Yes; statute permits losses, authorizing $4,000 restitution for dental losses. |
| Whether appellant waived inability-to-pay challenge | McDaniel claims he could not pay; court failed to inquire into ability to pay. | State says no waiver since appellant did not object; he admitted potential employment. | Waived; failure to object at sentencing bars challenge to ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Downes v. Downes, 388 Md. 561 (Md. 2005) (statutory interpretation guiding restitution scope and intent)
- Goff v. State, 387 Md. 327 (Md. 2005) (restitution for property damage as a direct result of crime; criminal sanction viewpoint)
- Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460 (Md. 2007) (limits on future-counseling restitution; causation considerations)
- Juliano v. State, 166 Md.App. 531 (Md. App. 2006) (competent evidence standard for restitution amount; written bills acceptable)
- John M., 129 Md.App. 165 (Md. App. 1999) (undetermined future expenses in juvenile restitution context)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v., 329 Md. 677 (Md. 1993) (restitution's purposes and rehabilitation focus)
- Grey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 363 Md. 445 (Md. 2001) (restitution as criminal sanction, not civil remedy)