Smith v. State, slip.op

Smith was incarcerated in Pennsylvania when Maryland charged him with sexual offenses and he invoked the IAD by requesting final disposition of the charges. 1
Maryland received Smith’s IAD request on April 17, 2024, starting the 180-day trial clock, and the statutory deadline was October 15, 2024. 2
The circuit court initially scheduled trial for October 15, 2024, then after an unrecorded August 6 chambers scheduling conference entered an August 8 order continuing trial to October 28, 2024. 3
Smith moved to dismiss on October 16, 2024, arguing the continuance violated the IAD because it was not granted in open court and after the deadline. 4
The State opposed dismissal, asserting defense counsel had cleared the new dates and thus waived the IAD deadline, but the circuit court denied the motion without a hearing. 5
Smith entered a conditional plea, preserved appeal, and received a consecutive sentence after which he appealed the denial of dismissal. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IAD continuance was valid without an open-court record. 7	Smith argued the chambers continuance lacked an open-court showing of good cause.	Maryland argued counsel agreed to the new date and a transcript was unnecessary.	No; the continuance was invalid because good cause was not shown in open court on the record. 8
Whether Smith waived the IAD deadline by silent acquiescence or clearing dates. 9	Smith argued silence or date-clearing did not waive the 180-day right.	Maryland argued defense counsel’s agreement to dates waived the deadline.	No; waiver requires express consent or request, and the record showed none. 10
What remedy follows the IAD violation. 11	Smith sought dismissal with prejudice.	Maryland sought affirmance despite the missed deadline.	Dismissal with prejudice was required and the conviction was reversed. 12

State v. Pair, 416 Md. 157 (Md. 2010) (IAD is remedial and burden of compliance rests on the States 13)
State v. Meadows, 261 Md. App. 464 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2024) (state bears the burden; silence is not waiver; defense counsel need not remind the State 14)
Aleman v. State, 469 Md. 397 (Md. 2020) (IAD articles correspond to Maryland code provisions 15)
New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (U.S. 2000) (express agreement to a continuance can waive IAD time limits 16)
Stanton v. State, 258 Md. App. 371 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2023) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo 17)
Blackstone v. Sharma, 461 Md. 87 (Md. 2018) (denial of a motion to dismiss is reviewed for legal correctness 18)
Birdwell v. Skeen, 983 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1993) (lists the five requirements for a valid IAD continuance 19)
Dillon v. State, 844 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1992) (open court requires at least a verbatim record of the continuance proceeding 20)
Isley v. State, 129 Md. App. 611 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) (discretion must be exercised before appellate review of that discretion is possible 21)
United States v. Odom, 674 F.2d 228 (4th Cir. 1982) (illustrates a valid chamber continuance record showing consent and waiver 22)
Pittman v. State, 301 A.2d 509 (Del. 1973) (states bear the burden of complying with the IAD 23)