Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Case Nos. C-03-CV-25-003883, C-03-CV-25-003886
C-03-CV-25-003888, C-03-CV-25-003885,
C-03-CV-25-003890 & C-03-CV-25-003889
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF MARYLAND
Petition No. 376, September Term, 2025
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
v.
RACHEL D. THOMPSON, et al.
Petition No. 377, September Term, 2025
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
v.
STASHAUNA DAREE M. WHITAKER, et al.
Petition No. 378, September Term, 2025
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
v.
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal WILLIAM ANTOINE LUNN, et al. Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State
Government Article) this document is authentic.
2026.08.25
10:49:25 -04'00'
Gregory Hilton, Clerk
Petition No. 379, September Term, 2025
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
v.
DEVONTE J. SCOTT, et al.
Petition No. 380, September Term, 2025
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
v.
CORTNI ALSTON, et al.
Petition No. 381, September Term, 2025
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
v.
MICHAEL MAGGIO, et al.
Watts,
Booth,
Biran,
Eaves,
Killough,
JJ.
PER CURIAM ORDER
Filed: August 25, 2026
*
IN THE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
*
HEALTH SUPREME COURT
*
OF MARYLAND
v.
*
Petition No. 376
September Term, 2026
*
RACHEL D. THOMPSON, et al.
(Cir. Ct. No. C-03-CV-25-003883)
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
IN THE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH *
SUPREME COURT
*
OF MARYLAND
v.
*
Petition No. 377
September Term, 2026
STASHAUNA DAREE M. *
WHITAKER, et al.
(Cir. Ct. No. C-03-CV-25-003886)
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
IN THE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
*
HEALTH SUPREME COURT
*
OF MARYLAND
v.
*
Petition No. 378
September Term, 2026
*
WILLIAM ANTOINE LUNN, et al.
(Cir. Ct. No. C-03-CV-25-003888)
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
IN THE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF *
SUPREME COURT
HEALTH
*
OF MARYLAND
v. *
Petition No. 379
September Term, 2026
*
DEVONTE J. SCOTT, et al.
(Cir. Ct. No. C-03-CV-25-003885)
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
IN THE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
*
HEALTH SUPREME COURT
*
OF MARYLAND
v.
*
Petition No. 380
September Term, 2026
*
CORTNI ALSTON, et al.
(Cir. Ct. No. C-03-CV-25-003890)
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
IN THE
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
*
HEALTH SUPREME COURT
*
OF MARYLAND
v.
*
Petition No. 381
September Term, 2026
*
MICHAEL MAGGIO, et al.
(Cir. Ct. No. C-03-CV-25-003889)
*
ORDER
Pending before the Court are the petitions for certiorari in the above-captioned
consolidated cases. The Court held these petitions pending its decision in Maryland
Department of Health v. Boulden, No. 35, September Term, 2025. The Court issued its
opinion in Boulden on July 15, 2026.
The Maryland Department of Health (the “Department”) is required to place every
defendant found incompetent to stand trial and dangerous (“IST”) in a designated
healthcare facility as soon as possible, but not later than 10 business days after the
Department receives the court commitment order. See Md. Code, Crim. Proc. (“CP”)
§ 3-106(c)(2)(i) (2025 Repl. Vol.). If the Department fails to meet the 10-day deadline, the
court “may impose any sanction reasonably designed to compel compliance, including
requiring the Health Department to reimburse a detention facility for expenses and costs
incurred in retaining the defendant” beyond the deadline. Id. § 3-106(c)(4).
In the consolidated cases before this Court, all six defendants, Rachel Thompson,
Stashauna Whitaker, William Lunn, Devonte Scott, Cortni Alston, and Michael Maggio,
were found IST by the District Court sitting in Baltimore County. The defendants were
detained at the Baltimore County Detention Center (“BCDC”) while they awaited transfer
to a Department facility. The Department failed to admit the defendants to designated
healthcare facilities within the 10-day deadline. Each defendant moved for sanctions under
CP § 3-106(c)(4).
The District Court held a consolidated hearing on defendants’ motions for sanctions
on August 5, 2025. The District Court imposed as a sanction the requirement that the
Department reimburse BCDC in the amount of $141.00 for each day the Department
violated CP § 3-106(c)(2)(i) with respect to each defendant. The court ran each sanction
retroactively to the eleventh business day following the issuance of the commitment order
and ordered that the daily sanction would continue “until the date on which the Defendant
is admitted to an MDH facility.” The Department noted a de novo appeal to the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County.
On November 10, 2025, the circuit court issued a written ruling and order imposing
the following “non-monetary sanctions” on the Department:
1. The Department shall refrain from requiring or relying upon clinical
acuity screening surveys, as such screening is not authorized by
statute or by regulation under COMAR;
2. The Department shall cease requesting or conditioning admission
upon the production of medical records from the BCDC or any other
local detention facility for the purpose of confirming or ranking a
defendant’s acuity, as no such requirement exists in law or regulation;
and
3. The Department shall admit defendants found incompetent to stand
trial and dangerous to a health care facility in the chronological order
of their commitment orders, consistent with the plain language and
legislative intent of § 3-106(c)(2).
The Department noted an appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland. The Appellate
Court subsequently transferred the cases to this Court on November 24, 2025. This Court
docketed the filings as noncompliant petitions for certiorari and allowed the Department to
file a supplement by December 10, 2025. On December 8, 2025, this Court granted the
Department’s emergency motion to stay enforcement of the circuit court’s sanctions orders
pending the decision on these consolidated petitions.
The Department then filed its supplement to the petitions for writ of certiorari,
seeking review of the following question in all six cases:
Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in issuing a sanction under Criminal
Procedure § 3-106(c)(4) that requires the Department to admit all committed
criminal defendants “in the chronological order of their commitment orders,”
regardless of the acuity of their condition?
Respondents subsequently filed a consolidated Answer to the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari.
In Boulden, this Court held that CP § 3-106(c)(4) authorizes courts to impose
sanctions to compel the Department to admit a defendant to a designated healthcare facility
as soon as possible after the 10-day deadline has run. We held that “[i]f the court can
reasonably conclude, based on the evidence before it, that the Department has not taken
available steps to admit the particular defendant before the court as soon as possible, the
court may impose a sanction that is designed to coerce the Department to do so.” Maj. Slip Op. at 33. We explained that § 3-106(c)(4)’s plain language “requires that a court impose
a sanction under § 3-106(c)(4) only for the purpose of compelling compliance with respect
to the particular defendant before the court – i.e., admitting the defendant to a designated
facility.” Maj. Slip Op. at 30.
On their face, the requirements imposed by the circuit court in these cases do not
comply with Boulden’s holding that a sanction compel compliance with respect to the
particular defendant before the court. In addition, nothing in Boulden authorizes a circuit
court to order the Department to forego its reliance on acuity. Neither the plain language
of § 3-106(c)(4) nor this Court’s interpretation of that provision in Boulden authorizes a
court to order the Department to prioritize acuity in any particular manner.
With respect to each pending petition for a writ of certiorari, the Court grants the
petition, vacates the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, and remands for
reconsideration in light of Boulden.
Chief Justice Fader did not participate in the consideration of these petitions. Justice
Gould does not join this Order.
/s/ Shirley M. Watts
Senior Justice