STATE OF MARYLAND v. OTIS RICH
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Getty, July 14, 2017,
Writ of Coram Nobis- Failure to explain the elements of a conspiracy charge can render a plea to the charge involuntary.
CoSA original and reconsideration opinions
‘not best to swap horses when crossing streams.’
That’s not what that means!!! It means that it’s dangerous and so the switch should be worth it. If one of the horses dies because of the Court of Appeals overrules it, you need to switch horses!
Facts
In 2001, Rich pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to conspiracy to distribute marijuana related to hand-to-hand CDS transactions in the 800 block of N. Collington.
During the plea explanation, the crimes of CDS possession and PWID were explained, but the crime of conspiracy was not explained.
In 2009, Rich pled guilty in federal court to PWID and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Rich was sentenced as a career offender based on his 2001 conviction and two others.
To get around this, Rich filed a writ of coram nobis challenging the voluntariness of his 2001 plea. Rich argued that his plea wasn’t voluntary because nobody explained the crime of conspiracy to him.
The State responded that Rich’s claim was without merit and the trial court agreed.
Rich appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with Rich, holding that his plea was not voluntary.
The State then requested review by the Court of Appeals, arguing that there wasn’t enough of a record from the 2001 plea to determine that Rich’s plea wasn’t voluntary. This was somewhat different than the State’s previous argument, which was that there was enough evidence to show that the plea was voluntary.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court of Appeals did not allow the State to change its position. The State could not change its position after the Court of Special Appeals had decided the case, by filing a motion asking the Court of Special Appeals to remand for further proceedings because the record of the plea hearing was not adequate to determine whether the plea was knowing and voluntary. The Court of Special Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the State’s motion for reconsideration on those new grounds.
Writ of Coram Nobis- A writ of coram nobis (or writ of error coram nobis) is a “backstop” motion made by a defendant who claims that a mistake was made in an earlier criminal case that is causing some collateral (unforeseen) complication for him now. It is frequently seen when a defendant is facing an enhanced penalty or deportation for an earlier criminal conviction.
Coram Nobis- An individual is entitled to Coram Nobis relief if:
(1) he is challenging his convictions based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or fundamental grounds, whether factual or legal;
(2) he can rebut the presumption of regularity that attaches to each criminal case;
(3) he faces significant collateral consequences from the convictions;
(4) the alleged error has not been waived or finally litigated in a prior proceeding, absent intervening changes in the applicable law; and
(5) he is not entitled to another statutory or common law remedy.
Writ of Coram Nobis- Waiver- A defendant does not waive his claim just because he did not bring it up on appeal
Writ of Coram Nobis – An appellate court will review a writ of coram nobis for abuse of discretion by the court that denies or grants the writ.
Coram Nobis- Testimony by the defendant’s trial attorney may be received during a coram nobis hearing to establish the circumstances surrounding a plea.