OTIS RICH v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Nazarian, Nov. 1, 2016,
Coram Nobis – Passage of 16 years, without actual evidence or proffer demonstrating prejudice, is insufficient to presume laches
Reconsideration from Rich v. State I
Changes in light of State v. Smith. Not much added, just notes on Smith. Most of the opinion remains the same, though it’s tough to say since they replaced the old opinion instead of issuing a new one
Coram Nobis – Waiver – CP 8-401 states that “The failure to seek an appeal in a criminal case may not be construed as a waiver of the right to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis.” This was enacted in 2012 and held by the CoA to apply retroactively to pending petitions.
From Rich v. State I:
The Court traces the “evolution, indeed the broadening, of coram nobis relief in the intervening six-and-a-half years.” Then finds that because conspiracy to distribute CDS was not explained and is not self-explanatory, failure to elaborate was error affecting the voluntariness of the plea.
Laches- Laches is both an affirmative defense and an equitable defense, so the State bears the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) there was an unreasonable or impermissible delay in asserting a particular claim, and
(2) that the delay prejudiced the State.
Laches – Where no evidence is produced, no pleading or proffer, and no hearing held, an assumption that witnesses would be unable to recall the circumstances 16 years ago was insufficient to sustain a claim of laches.
Citing Smith
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.
When a defendant brings a coram nobis petition attacking the constitutionality of a guilty plea in trial court, the ultimate issue for the appellate court is whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges, regardless of what the trial court could determine from the record before it. (Interpreting Smith)
Guilty Plea – Voluntariness – Assault is not a complex charge and it is not error for the trial court to bypass spelling out the elements
Guilty Plea – Voluntariness – Conspiracy is more complex and must be explained