STATE OF MARYLAND v. ROBERT CLIFFORD WEDDINGTON
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Greene, February 21, 2018,
Discharge of Counsel – A post-trial hearing to determine grounds for discharge of counsel can not cure a failure to hold a pre-trial hearing
Facts:
In October of 2014, Weddington was charged in Baltimore County with child sex abuse against two minors. A Public Defender entered her appearance in the case to represent Weddington.
In October of 2015, Weddington sent a letter to the trial judge stating that:
“I would like to let my attorney go because of her willingness to properly work in my behalf to proove im not guilty. The things I’ve asked her to do to proove alibis, wasn’t done nor did she do anything I’ve asked of her.”
Weddington requested that his public defender be removed and a panel attorney be appointed.
A hearing was held on the matter and Weddington’s request was denied.
In November of 2015, Weddington sent another letter to the judge. The letter stated that “my Public defender have way to many cases to properly work on my cases also we have not been getting along.”. He stated that “words have been xchanged [sic] and I’m not trusting her at all.” Weddington also complained that his attorney had not followed up on aspects of his case.
This letter was forwarded to the State and Defense, but no further action was taken.
In January of 2016, Weddington sent another letter to the trial judge. This one complained that his lawyer was not asking the State to force witnesses to take a lie detector test. He also claimed that his lawyer was “talking down to me like I was guilty. I am sure cause of the nature of the charge and her gender, She is completly Bias towards me and not working in my best interest on this case At All.”
No action was taken on this letter.
On February 3, 2016, Weddington was convicted of second-degree rape, sexual abuse of a minor, and child abuse.
In March of 2016, a hearing was held to determine why Weddington wished to discharge his attorney prior to trial and why this issue was not brought up at trial.
The hearing judge determined that Weddington’s request was insufficient and that there was no cause to discharge his attorney prior to trial.
Weddington appealed, arguing that his request for a new lawyer should have automatically given him a hearing where he could explain himself. He also argued that failure to give him that hearing meant that he should get a new trial.
The Court of Special Appeals agreed, finding that the Court of Appeals had previously held that failure to hold a pre-trial hearing was reversible error.
The State then requested review by the Court of Appeals, arguing that the post-trial hearing showed that the error was harmless.
Held: The Court of Appeals held that a post-trial hearing did not correct the failure to hold a pre-trial hearing.
Discharge of Counsel – For Rule 4-215:
(1) there must be a request to discharge counsel,
(2) the court must “permit the defendant to explain the reasons for the request[,]”
(3) the court must consider those reasons,
and (4) the court must determine whether the reasons given are meritorious.
Discharge of Counsel – A request for permission to discharge counsel triggering the process mandated by Md. Rule 4-215(e) is “‘any statement from which a court could conclude reasonably that the defendant may be inclined to discharge counsel.”
Discharge of Counsel – There is no “harmless error” analysis for failure to conduct a Rule 4-215(e) hearing
Discharge of Counsel – Waiver – A defendant who has sent a letter requesting a new attorney does not waive his claim by failing to bring it up again later
Discharge of Counsel – No actual knowledge of the letter is required by the trial judge to trigger the requirement of a Rule 4-215(e) hearing
From the Case: A circuit court should avoid sandbagging on the part of the defendant by making sure that court clerks forward and document letters appropriately