Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 52 September Term, 2008 ________________________________________ KENNETH MARTIN STACHOWSKI, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND *** No. 16 September Term, 2008

WAYNE STOCKSTILL v. STATE OF MARYLAND __________________________________________ Bell, C. J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins Eldridge, John C. (Retired, Specially Assigned) Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. __________________________________________ Opinion by Eldridge, J. Harrell, Adkins, and Rodowsky, JJ., dissent. ________________________________________ Filed: October 22, 2010

These two cases present the same issue concerning the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court, although the cases are otherwise unrelated. Since that jurisdictional issue is dispositive in this Court, and requires that the previously issued writ of certiorari in each case be dismissed, we shall consider the cases in a single opinion. I. The facts in each case pertinent to the jurisdictional issue are as follows. A. Stachowski v. State This case began in 2005 when Kenneth Martin Stachowski was charged in the District Court of Maryland, Somerset County, with theft under $500. The charge was based upon Stachowski's giving, in June 2005, a bad check in the amount of $182.86 to a company known as Somerset Well Drilling. Upon Stachowski's request for a jury trial, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Somerset County and was given case number 8089. Stachowski made full restitution to Somerset Well Drilling prior to the trial of the case in the Circuit Court. The case was called for trial in the Circuit Court for Somerset County on October 11, 2006. Stachowski waived a jury trial, pled guilty, and, after the prosecuting attorney recounted the factual basis for the guilty plea, Stachowski was found guilty. At the same time that this trial of the bad check case took place, the Circuit Court also heard de novo appeals from the District Court in three violation of probation cases (Circuit Court case numbers 8150, 8151, and 8152). These three cases were factually and legally unrelated to the present bad check case except that Stachowski was also the defendant. Case numbers 8150, 8151, and 8152 were based upon three District Court prosecutions charging Stachowski with violations of Maryland's home improvement

-2-

laws. The victims were Ruth Daniels, Darlene Wright, and Emma Daniels. At the conclusion of the District Court trials, Stachowski was found guilty of violating the home improvement laws, was placed on probation, and was ordered to make restitution to the three victims. Stachowski did not appeal from the convictions in the District Court home improvement cases. Later, however, the District Court determined that Stachowski was in violation of probation because of his failure to make restitution to the three victims of the home improvement violations. Stachowski appealed to the Circuit Court from the District Court orders revoking probation. As previously indicated, these three appeals (numbers 8150, 8151, and 8152) were heard de novo along with the trial in the bad check case (number 8089). In case numbers 8150, 8151, and 8152, Stachowski testified that he was unable to make the restitution payments to the three victims because of numerous financial and legal problems which he and his family were facing. The circuit judge revoked probation in case numbers 8150, 8151, and 8152, and imposed sentences in those three cases as well as in the bad check case (number 8089), with portions of each sentence suspended in favor of periods of probation. The action of the Circuit Court which gave rise to the appellate proceedings in this Court was a restitution order which was part of the judgment in the bad check case (number 8089). Despite the fact that Stachowski had already made full restitution to the victim in the bad check case, the circuit judge required, as a condition of probation in case number 8089, that Stachowski also make restitution to the three victims in the home improvement appeals, case numbers 8150, 8151, and 8152. The judge stated

-3-

(emphasis added):

"In all cases I'm going to waive fines, costs and fees given the amount of restitution that's due. "In 8150 the amount of restitution due is two thousand oneforty-two-eighty-five. The amount of restitution in 8151 -- that's to Darlene Wright - two thousand one-forty-two-eighty-five. Ruth Daniels is eight thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven dollars. Restitution is ordered in both of those cases. Likewise in 8152 restitution in the amount of four thousand one hundred and fifty dollars is owed to Emma Daniels. "As a condition of his probation in 8089 he's to make restitution to those three victims in the amount of three hundred dollars per month beginning thirty days from the last -"DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The end of the first full calendar month? "THE COURT: The end of the first calendar month. He's allowed on work release."

On November 9, 2006, Stachowski filed in the Court of Special Appeals applications for leave to appeal in the present bad check case (number 8089) as well as in the three home improvement appeals (numbers 8150, 8151, and 8152). Pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-132, the Court of Special Appeals transferred the three home improvement cases to this Court.1 The reason for the transfer was that the Court of

1

Rule 8-132 provides as follows: "Rule 8-132. Transfer of appeal improperly taken. "If the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals determines that an appellant has improperly noted an appeal to it but may be entitled to appeal to another court exercising appellate (continued...)

-4-

Special Appeals has no jurisdiction to review decisions of the Circuit Courts where the Circuit Courts, in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, entertain appeals from final judgments of the District Court of Maryland. Further appellate review of Circuit Court decisions in such cases is exclusively by discretionary writ of certiorari issued by this Court. See Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl. Vol.),

Download Stachowski v. State.pdf

Maryland Law