MARYLAND CRIMINAL LAW PRACTICE: State versus Daughtry (2011) and State versus Miller (2009): Key Cases By Defense Attorney Charles Jerome Ware

State versus Daughtry (2011) and State versus Miller (2009): Key Cases By Defense Attorney Charles Jerome Ware

Maryland criminal law is a body of rules and statutes that defines conduct which is prohibited by the state of Maryland because the conduct threatens and harms public safety and welfare. Maryland criminal law also establishes punishment to be imposed upon those who commit criminal acts and/or engage in criminal conduct.

State of Maryland v. Demetrius Daughtry, No. 81, September Term 2010, Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA), Filed April 25, 2011:

CRIMINAL LAW – GUILTY PLEAS – VOLUNTARINESS – MARYLAND RULE 4-242 –PRESUMPTION THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL EXPLAINS CHARGES TO HIS/HER CLIENT.

ALLOWING A TRIAL COURT, IN ENSURING THAT A GUILTY PLEA IS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY, AND ENTERED INTELLIGENTLY, TO RELY ON NOTHING MORE THAN A PRESUMPTION THAT “IN MOST CASES DEFENSE COUNSEL ROUTINELY EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO GIVE THE ACCUSED NOTICE OF . . . WHAT HE IS BEING ASKED TO ADMIT” RUNS CONTRARY TO MARYLAND RULE 4-242’s REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE AN ADEQUATE EXAMINATION “ON THE RECORD IN OPEN COURT.”

ACCORDINGLY, WHERE THE RECORD REFLECTS NOTHING MORE THAN THE FACT THAT A DEFENDANT IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THAT THE DEFENDANT DISCUSSED GENERICALLY THE PLEA WITH HIS OR HER ATTORNEY, SUCH A PLEA COLLOQUY IS DEFICIENT UNDER RULE 4-242(c), AND THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED.

Chad Everette Miller v. State of Maryland, No. 645, September Term 2007, Maryland Court of Special Appeals (MCOSA), Filed May 4, 2009:

On May 14, 2007, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Chad Everette Miller, the appellant, entered a guilty plea to one count of burglary in the first degree. As part of a plea agreement, the prosecutor recommended a sentence of 15 years’incarceration, suspend all but five years, to be followed by a period of probation. The court was not bound by the recommendation, however. After hearing from the appellant and the victim, and after considering the appellant’s record, the court sentenced him to 15 years’ incarceration, with no period suspended.

The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (MCOSA). The appellant supplemented his appeal with a written challenge to the “voluntariness” of his guilty plea.

THE MCOSA granted the appellant’s application and ordered the parties

to brief the following question:

Did the guilty plea voirdire establish that the [appellant] had the requisite understanding of the nature and elements of the crime of first-degree burglary?

The MCOSA concluded that the answer was "no". The appellant's/defendant/s guilty plea voir dire did not establish that he had the requisite understanding of the nature and elements of the crime of first-degree burglary.

The MCOSA stated in its decision that the record in this case did not show that the appellant was informed during the plea hearing nor at any other time after being charged:

“Of course, there was no affirmative evidence that the appellant was never advised of that crime before pleading guilty. We have not uncovered any case decided post-Bradshaw, however, that has applied a presumption that a defendant pleaded guilty with knowledge of the nature and elements of the crime in the absence of any record evidence that he did so. As we said, it appears that a “knowledge of the nature and elements of the crime” presumption should not arise from legal representation alone. The record in this case does not show that the appellant knew the nature and elements of the charge of first-degree burglary when he entered his guilty plea. Accordingly, the plea must be vacated.”