BRIAN TATE v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Greene, June 25, 2018,
Guilty Plea – Daughtry does not apply in the post-conviction context

Facts:
In 1992, Brian Tate stabbed a man to death and left him in a shed in Annapolis.
Tate pled guilty to first-degree murder the same year in exchange for the State not seeking life without parole and not opposing Tate’s request for treatment at Patuxent Institution.
Before finding Tate guilty, the trial judge questioned Tate extensively and advised him of his rights. Tate was then sentenced to life with the possibility of parole and recommended for treatment at Patuxent.
In 2005, Tate filed a petition for post-conviction, arguing that he did not fully understand his guilty plea and that his trial counsel was ineffective.
This petition was denied in 2009.
In 2011, Tate filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction case, arguing that Daughtry, a recent Court of Appeals decision required that his case be reopened because “there was no on-the-record confirmation that he understood the elements of the crime to which he pled” guilty.
In 2014, a post-conviction court ruled that Tate’s conviction had to be vacated and sent back for a new trial because the judge that took the plea “never made a finding that Mr. Tate knowingly, freely and voluntarily entered the plea.”
The State appealed, arguing that the totality of the circumstances surrounding Tate’s lengthy plea showed that it was knowing and voluntary.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the State, reversing the post-conviction court’s decision.
Tate then requested review by the Court of Appeals.

Held: The Court held that Daughtry “applies only in circumstances where a defendant appeals his or her conviction following the entry of a guilty plea.” But even if it didn’t apply, the plea court “had enough evidence before it to find that Mr. Tate knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea to first-degree murder.”