FROM THE HOWARD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 31CR-16-135],
HONORABLE CHARLES A. YEARGAN, JUDGE
Law Firm, PLLC, by: Camille M. Cashion, for appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Asst Atty Gen.,
M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Amanda Jill Sharp was convicted in a bench trial of
first-degree criminal mischief and criminal trespass. She was
sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years
imprisonment, with eight of those years suspended. She was
also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,380.77.
She argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying
her motion to dismiss. We affirm.
Appellant was arrested on September 25, 2016, at the home of
Deputy John Eric Glidewell of the Howard County Sheriffs
Department. According to the affidavit for the arrest
warrant, appellant arrived at Glidewells home at
approximately 6:00 a.m., at a high rate of speed and parked
her vehicle about ten feet from the residence. She jumped out
of the vehicle and began screaming and beating on and ramming
the front door. She subsequently turned around and began
kicking the door. This behavior continued for nearly five
minutes even though Glidewell was telling her to stop.
Glidewell was able to go outside and place appellant under
arrest and call for assistance. As a result of appellants
actions, there was damage to Glidewells front door,
including damage to the door frame and glass door. The vinyl
siding next to the door also had "holes" in it. The
bench warrant was issued October 4.
January 4, 2017 hearing, appellant indicated that she
intended to raise mental disease or defect as a defense.
Orders for criminal responsibility and fitness to proceed
examinations were filed the same day. A forensic evaluation
was performed on appellant on February 10, 2017, by Dr. Julia
M. Wood. She diagnosed appellant with schizoaffective
disorder and methamphetamine-use disorder. Dr. Wood concluded
that appellant did not lack the capacity to understand the
proceedings against her or to assist effectively in her own
defense. However, Dr. Wood opined that appellant lacked the
capacity to appreciate the criminality of her conduct and to
conform her conduct to the requirements of the law at the
time of the alleged offense due to her schizoaffective
disorder. She also found that appellant "was capable of
the culpable mental state required as an element of the
alleged offense." She concluded that appellants
substance abuse was not the "sole cause of her psychotic
and mood symptoms." Additionally, she concluded that
appellant was not high on drugs at the time of the offense
because appellant had used drugs three days prior to the
offense and had "slept well since her prior meth
use." Dr. Woods report was filed on February 15.
Appellant requested a second mental evaluation at the May 2,
2018 hearing, and orders for criminal responsibility and
fitness-to-proceed examinations were filed the same day. Dr.
Wood performed another forensic evaluation on appellant on
June 21. She made the same diagnosis and findings as before;
however, this time the report indicated that appellants
"substance abuse ended 4 days prior to the alleged
crime." The report was filed on June 28.
hearing held on December 5, appellant asked for a bench trial
and indicated that she would be raising an affirmative
defense based on her mental evaluations. A motion to dismiss
based on a lack of criminal responsibility was filed the same
day. A hearing on the motion took place on December 12. The
court took the matter under advisement. An order denying
appellants motion was filed on December 21.
Appellants bench trial took place on January 14, 2019.
Glidewell testified that he was home asleep on September 25,
2016, when he heard loud music coming up his driveway and
gravel popping. According to Glidewell, it "almost
sounded like a wreck." He stated that the vehicle pulled
up a few feet from his door, beside his bedroom window. He
testified that all he could hear was somebody hollering. He
stated that he heard a womans voice and it sounded like she
was beating on his "front metal door with something
metal while screaming." He said that he told his wife to
call 9-1-1 and subsequently retrieved his gun. He testified
that the woman started "kicking the door causing the
whole door to shake." He stated that after about five
minutes, he realized it was appellant who was yelling his
name and trying to get inside his house. He said that he
could not understand what appellant was saying because her
car radio was "turned up so loud." He testified
that although he thought appellant was hitting the door with
something metal, he realized that she had "turned around
and was kicking it as hard as she could." He threatened
to shoot her if she did not move away from his door, which
she did not do. He stated that at some point he put his head
down near the door and saw sheetrock coming down. He
testified that appellant finally sat down in the doorway, and
he ran and got his handcuffs. He was able to get her to
"scoot back" from the doorway so that he could go
outside. Once outside, he placed appellant under arrest. He
stated that he asked appellant why she was at his house, and
she responded with "random off the wall stuff" such
as that "the Baileys had poisoned her and people were
getting their electricity." He said that appellant was
moving "up and down" and that he finally got her to
sit in the yard but that she rolled around, making it
"obvious to [him] that she was on drugs." He
testified that appellant told him several times that she was
on drugs and she later said she was on methamphetamine. He
stated that he had known appellant for years, but she had
never come to his house. He said that appellant busted his
door and damaged his siding with a flashlight that she
subsequently put in the flower bed. He stated that he
received an estimate in the amount of $2,394 for the damages
caused by appellant. He testified that he would end up paying
about $4,000 because he is buying a "better door due to
cross-examination, Glidewell stated that he lives two houses
down from appellant and that his house is located a half mile
from appellants home. He said that another deputy lives a
couple of miles north of him. He testified that when
appellant pulled up, he could hear hollering and that he
later could hear her screaming his name. He stated that once
he detained appellant, she told him that "the Baileys
had poisoned her, someone named Bob, and that she saw
something in the ditch." He said that appellant was
"looking around, looking off in the ditch, and saying
there they are insisting somebody was in the ditch."
He testified that his door and siding were the only things
damaged by appellant.
redirect, Glidewell stated that he had worked in law
enforcement for nineteen years and had encountered
"probably ... hundreds or thousands" of people
under the influence of methamphetamine. According to
Glidewell, appellant was displaying those same behaviors
displayed by people under the influence, such as "seeing
things and just looking around and couldnt stay still."
He stated that appellant was "obviously on drugs."
He said that if appellant had just been scared, she would
have calmed down because he was there, but she just kept
talking over him.
recross, Glidewell stated that he also had a lot of dealings
with people suffering from schizophrenia during his nineteen
years in law enforcement. He admitted that he is no doctor
but that he believes appellants behavior was "drug
induced although she might have other issues." He stated
that he had spoken with appellant several times before and
after the incident and that it was his belief that appellant
was on drugs the night in question; however, he admitted
schizophrenia can come and go in episodes.
Appellant made a motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the
States evidence, challenging the criminal intent and amount
of damages. The court ...