(b) Applicability. This Rule applies in its entirety to problem-solving court programs submitted for approval on or after July 1, 2019. Sections (a), (e), (f), and (g) of this Rule apply also to problem-solving court programs in existence on July 1, 2019.

(c) Submission of Plan. After initial consultation with the Office of Problem-Solving Courts and any officials whose participation in the programs will be required, the County Administrative Judge of a circuit court or a District Administrative Judge of the District Court may prepare and submit to the Office of Problem-Solving Courts a detailed plan for a problem-solving court program in a form approved by the State Court Administrator.

Committee note: Examples of officials to be consulted, depending on the nature of the proposed program, include individuals in the Office of the State's Attorney, Office of the Public Defender; Department of Juvenile Services; health, addiction, and education agencies; the Division of Parole and Probation; and the Department of Human Services.

(d) Approval of Plan. After review of the plan and consultation with such other judicial entities as the State Court Administrator may direct, the Office of Problem-Solving Courts shall submit the plan, together with any comments and a recommendation, to the State Court Administrator. The State Court Administrator shall review the materials and make a recommendation to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The program shall not be implemented until it is approved by order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

(f) Immediate Sanctions; Loss of Liberty or Termination from Program. If permitted by the program and in accordance with the protocols of the program, the court, for good cause, may impose an immediate sanction on a participant, except that if the participant is considered for the imposition of a sanction involving the loss of liberty or termination from the program, the participant shall be afforded notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to be represented by an attorney before the court makes its decision. If a hearing is required by section (f) of this Rule and the participant is not represented by an attorney, the court shall comply with Rule 4-215 in a criminal action or Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-20 in a delinquency action before holding the hearing.

Committee note: In considering whether a judge should be disqualified pursuant to Rule 18-102.11 of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct from conducting violation of probation proceedings involving a defendant who has been terminated from a problem-solving court program, the judge should be sensitive to any exposure to ex parte communications or inadmissible information that the judge may have received while the participant was in the program. Even in cases where the judge does not have personal bias or prejudice that would require disqualification, if presiding over the violation of probation proceedings might reasonably create the appearance of impropriety, the judge should disqualify himself or herself. See Conner v. State, 472 Md. 722 (2021).

(g) Credit for Incarceration Time Served. If a participant is terminated from a program, any period of time during which the participant was incarcerated as a sanction during participation in the program shall be credited against any sentence imposed or directed to be executed in the action.