Appeal Denied In Worcester County Assault Case

SNOW HILL – A Salisbury man, sentenced in 2017 to 10 years for a first-degree assault conviction after attempting to run a Worcester County Sheriff’s deputy off the road, had his appeal denied yet again last week.

On Jan. 1, 2017, Worcester County Sheriff’s Deputy Kyle Hayes was on uniformed patrol in the area of Route 50 and Route 589 and observed a vehicle suspected of being involved in a hit-and-run collision reported earlier in Ocean City. The same vehicle had reportedly fled from a Maryland State Police (MSP) trooper at the MSP Princess Anne barrack a day earlier.

The deputy observed the driver, later identified as Glenn Carmean, now 53, of Salisbury, commit several traffic violations in the area of routes 50 and 589. In addition, the deputy observed front-end damage on Carmean’s vehicle consistent with the reported hit-and-run collision in Ocean City.

The deputy initiated a traffic stop to no avail and a pursuit ensued. According to police reports, Carmean attempted to ram the deputy at speeds of over 100 mph during the pursuit. The deputy was able to slam on the brakes of his patrol vehicle to avoid the collision by merely inches, according to police reports at the time.

The chase continued into Wicomico County, and after being pursued for roughly 35 miles, Carmean crashed in the median of Route 50 at Hobbs Road near the Arthur W. Perdue Stadium. He was reportedly pulled from his vehicle reeking of alcohol and an open bottle of liquor was recovered from the vehicle.

west o bottle shop

In September 2017, Carmean was convicted of first- and second-degree assault, driving while impaired, attempting to elude police, reckless driving and other traffic violations. In December of that year, Carmean was sentenced to 10 years for the first-degree assault conviction and a consecutive three-year sentence for the driving while impaired conviction.

In October 2019, Carmean, through his attorney, filed a motion for evaluation and commitment to the county health department for drug and alcohol addiction. The court ordered the evaluation, and when the outcome was returned, the court denied the request for commitment.

A year later, Carmean again filed the same motion, and the court denied the request. In December 2021, Carmean filed the same motion for a third time and the court granted the motion for another evaluation. In February 2022, a hearing convened via Zoom from the Eastern Correctional Institution where Carmean was being incarcerated.

According to an appeal Carmean subsequently filed with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the lower court indicated in court records from that hearing it would take the matter into consideration. In March, the lower court filed an order indicating it was denying Carmean’s request for consideration of commitment for a third time.

Carmean then filed an appeal with the Court of Special Appeals asserting the lower court had indicated it was open to the possibility of granting Carmean’s request for commitment for drug or alcohol addiction but did an about-face and then denied the motion.

Last week, the Court of Special Appeals upheld the lower court’s denial of Carmean’s appeal for consideration of commitment for drug or alcohol addiction, citing the February Zoom meeting had not been transcribed and there was nothing in the record to suggest the lower court indicated it was considering the motion.

“On appeal, Carmean asserts that, at the hearing on his motion, the judge indicated on open court record that he was going to grant his request, but in an unexpected decision later denied it,” the appeals court’s opinion reads. “He maintains that denial created ambiguity and denied him any transparency. The state responded it was Carmean’s obligation to produce the transcript from the February 2022 hearing, which he failed to do. Without the transcript, we cannot address this issue.”

The Court of Special Appeals opinion released last week asserts there is nothing in the record to suggest the lower court considered granting Carmean’s motion, his third attempt at the same motion. The high court’s opinion also suggests the lower court is not obliged to provide a reason for denying such a motion.

“In short, there is nothing in the record before us to support Carmean’s claim that at that February 2022 hearing the court agreed to grant his request for commitment to the Department of Health,” the opinion reads. “As for Carmean’s claim that the court’s denial of his request lacks transparency, we note that Health General code does not require a court to set forth its reasons for its ruling on a request for commitment for treatment. Moreover, whether to grant or deny such a motion is a decision that the legislature has left to the court’s discretion.”

The appeals court opinion released last week reiterated there was nothing in the record from that hearing in February indicating the lower court was considering granting Carmean’s motion.

“There is nothing in the motion before us to indicate that the court believed it was prohibited from granting Carmean’s request,” the opinion reads. “Accordingly, we hold that the court’s order denying Carmean’s request for commitment to the department for treatment is not appealable.”

About The Author: Shawn Soper

Alternative Text

Shawn Soper has been with The Dispatch since 2000. He began as a staff writer covering various local government beats and general stories. His current positions include managing editor and sports editor. Growing up in Baltimore before moving to Ocean City full time three decades ago, Soper graduated from Loch Raven High School in 1981 and from Towson University in 1985 with degrees in mass communications with a journalism concentration and history.