Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of distributing and possessing a controlled dangerous substance. The court of special appeals affirmed the conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel sued Petitioner during the representation for unpaid legal fees. The postconviction court granted Petitioner a new trial, reasoning that counsel had a conflict of interest in representing Petitioner. The court of appeals reversed after applying the general test set forth in Strickland v. Washington. At issue on appeal was whether the exception to Strickland's general rule applied in this case. The exception, set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, states that the defendant is excused from proving the prejudice prong of the Strickland test upon a showing that counsel was burdened by an "actual conflict of interest." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this case entailed a conflict of interest governed by the Sullivan rubric; and (2) Petitioner was entitled under the Sullivan rule to the benefit of the presumption of prejudice only if he could show the conflict of interest was "actual" in the sense that it had an adverse effect upon counsel's performance. Remanded.

After having been convicted on an agreed-upon statement of the facts of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun illegally and of being in possession of a handgun after conviction of a disqualifying offense, Defendant appealed. Before any action was taken by the court of special appeals, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the use by police of a Taser that fired two metal darts in the back of Defendant affected a Terry stop or Defendant's arrest. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the use of a Taser in this case converted what otherwise may have been a Terry stop into a de facto arrest for Fourth Amendment purposes, and there did not exist sufficient probable cause to arrest Defendant; and (2) Defendant's statement to the police that he had a gun in his pocket and the gun recovered from him should have been suppressed. Remanded for a new trial.

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree felony murder. Petitioner's defense at trial was that his participation in the crimes with which he was charged was coerced. Petitioner argued on appeal that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury with respect to duress was error. The court of special appeals affirmed, rejecting, in the process, the State's argument that the defense of duress is not applicable to felony murder. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in Maryland, duress is a defense to felony murder; but (2) to establish and be entitled to the defense of duress, a defendant need not first prove he attempted to stop or thwart the offense that he was compelled to commit. Remanded for a new trial.

At issue in this case was when "meaningful trial proceedings" begin for purposes of Md. Rule 4-215(e) regarding a defendant's request to discharge counsel. Defendant in this case requested to discharge counsel preceding voir dire the morning before trial. After roll call of the jury was taken, the judge excused the venire panel and allowed Petitioner to discharge counsel and proceed pro se. Defendant was tried and convicted. The court of special appeals affirmed, holding that, because meaningful trial proceedings had begun, Rule 4-215(e) did not apply to Defendant's request to discharge counsel. Therefore, the court of special appeals reviewed the trial judge's decision for abuse of discretion, finding none. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the court of special appeals correctly held that once the venire panel was summoned to the courtroom, meaningful trial proceedings had begun; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals did not err in holding Rule 4-215(e) did not apply to Defendant's request to discharge his counsel.

Defendant was on probation for a drunken driving offense when his DNA was collected for a separate murder investigation. The DNA was taken from saliva that Defendant left on a straw in the course of complying with an alcohol monitoring program mandated by the terms of his probation. The DNA test resulted in incriminating evidence against Defendant. The State introduced the DNA and lab report into evidence, and Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The court of special appeals affirmed, concluding that Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the testing straw or the DNA on it, and therefore, the seizure of Defendant's DNA without a warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the State recovered his DNA from the straw utilized for the mandatory test; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of manslaughter by motor vehicle, participating in a race or speed contest, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident resulting in death. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court unduly restricted his counsel during closing argument by limiting which comparative standards of proof he could argue to the jury. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed because the trial court's refusal to allow a discussion of extraneous legal standards was not an abuse of its broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument so as to avoid potential confusion of the jury.

Respondent recorded a deed he had altered. At a bench trial, Respondent was convicted of counterfeiting pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law 8-601. The court of special appeals reversed based on its conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to show an intent to defraud another. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated Respondent's conviction, holding (1) the trial's finding that Respondent had committed a fraud on the system of recordation satisfied the specific intent element of section 8-601 that a defendant have acted with the "intent to defraud another" because the fact that Respondent acted with the intent to defraud the system of deed recordation inherently reflected the intent to defraud anyone who would later seek to rely on the accuracy of the deed; and (2) Respondent did not act in good faith.

Following his arrest at age sixteen, Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to murder and other crimes even though the indictment returned by the Grand Jury did not charge assault with intent to murder. Petitioner did not raise this issue at trial, at sentencing, or on direct appeal. Not until sixteen years after his conviction did Petitioner file a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that the trial court lacked the power to convict and sentence him for assault with intent to murder because that charge was not contained in the indictment. The circuit court denied the petition, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the court of special appeals and vacated Petitioner's conviction and sentence for assault with intent to murder, holding (1) Petitioner's sentence for assault with intent to murder was illegal because that crime was not contained in the indictment returned by the Grand Jury; and (2) Petitioner's motion to correct and illegal sentence was timely because Maryland Rule 4-345(a) allows the trial court to correct an illegal sentence at any time.

This matter stemmed from an order of the circuit court granting Petitioner postconviction relief by vacating his conviction for first degree premeditated murder and leaving in place Petitioner's related convictions for felony murder and first degree rape. The court of special appeals reversed that order and reinstated Petitioner's conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's writ for certiorari and the State's conditional cross-petition, holding (1) the court of appeals properly exercised jurisdiction when it decided the State's appeal; (2) Petitioner was not entitled to postconviction relief; and (3) the term-of-years Petitioner received for first degree premeditated murder, but not the sentence for first degree rape, was illegal and must be corrected on remand. Remanded.

Petitioner Jerome Pinkney was convicted of second degree assault and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. Petitioner appealed, claiming that the trial court violated Maryland Rule 4-215(e) by failing to inform him of his right to discharge counsel and proceed to trial pro se. The intermediate appellate court affirmed, concluding that the trial judge was not required under the plain language and meaning of Rule 4-215(e) to inform Petitioner of the right to conduct his trial pro se in the absence of a statement by Petitioner reasonably indicating a desire to represent himself at trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial judge was not required to inform Petitioner of his right to pro se representation in a situation where the trial court denied Petitioner's unmeritorious request to discharge trial counsel and petitioner made no statement that reasonably could be understood as indicating a desire to invoke the right to self-representation.