Abrams v. State, 2021 September Term, 2006.

• Decision Date: 10 September 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2021 September Term, 2006.,2021 September Term, 2006.
• Citation: 933 A.2d 887,176 Md. App. 600
• Parties: Kayode ABRAMS v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

933 A.2d 887

176 Md. App. 600

Kayode ABRAMS v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 2021 September Term, 2006.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

September 10, 2007.

Reconsideration Denied November 6, 2007.

Rachel M. Kamins (Fred W. Bennett, on the brief), Greenbelt, for Appellant.

Mary Ann Ince (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellee.

Panel: DEBORAH S. EYLER, WOODWARD, and CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR., (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

WOODWARD, Judge.

This appeal arises out of an Alford plea¹ tendered in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by appellant, Kayode Abrams, to three counts of uttering on June 16, 1994. The circuit court accepted appellant's plea and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment on each of the three counts, to run concurrently, and suspended the execution of the sentence in lieu of a period of two years' probation. On September 1, 2006, appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, alleging, inter alia, that appellant's guilty plea was both unconstitutional and violative of Maryland Rule 4-242(c) because a factual basis for the plea had not been set forth on the record. After conducting a hearing on appellant's petition, the circuit court denied the same by order dated October 4, 2006.² Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal on October 26, 2006.

In this appeal, appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his coram nobis petition because the record of his Alford plea contained neither a factual basis in support of the plea nor an adequate explanation of the elements of the crime. In response, the State raises a more fundamental issue, which was not presented to the trial court: Whether appellant is entitled to coram nobis relief when a probation before judgment under Article 27, section 641³ was granted on all charges and appellant successfully completed the probation thereunder.

For the reasons set forth herein, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

On March 29, 1994, an indictment was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, charging appellant with nine counts of uttering and one count of theft over $300. The statement of charges for these offenses, originally filed in the district court, was filed in the circuit court on April 6, 1994. On June 16, 1994, appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered an Alford plea to three counts of uttering. The remaining six counts of uttering and one count of theft over $300 were nol prossed by the State.

The following relevant part of the plea colloquy then ensued between the court and appellant.

THE COURT: [Defense counsel] tells me you want to plead guilty to three counts of uttering, which accuses you of offering a forged instrument to obtain some benefit you are not entitled to which carries a possible maximum of 10 years. It is a felony. Do you understand that?

[APPELLANT]: Yes, ma'am.

* * *

THE COURT: [Appellant], did you get a copy of the statement of charges in your case where it sets out what it is you are supposed to have done?

[APPELLANT]: Yes.

THE COURT: Did you read it and understand it?

[APPELLANT]: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Did you go over it with your attorney together with all possible defenses?

[APPELLANT]: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Do you believe if your case went to trial that would be the State's evidence against you?

[APPELLANT]: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Anything about the proceedings you don't understand?

[APPELLANT]: No, ma'am.

THE COURT: Anybody offer you anything other than this plea agreement or threaten you in order to cause you to enter this plea?

[APPELLANT]: No, ma'am.

THE COURT: Are you entering it freely and voluntarily?

[APPELLANT]: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: The [c]ourt finds the plea is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly, intelligently given. Find the factual basis set out in the statement of charges, takes judicial notice of the statement of charges, finds jurisdiction.

Accordingly, enter pleas under the provisions of North Carolina v. Alford to counts 7,8 and 9.

At no time did the court, the prosecutor, or defense counsel give an oral statement of facts in support of the plea. Defense counsel did not object to the plea colloquy or the court's acceptance of appellant's plea. Thereafter, the court sentenced appellant to one year for each of the three uttering charges, to run concurrently, and suspended all but one day, giving appellant credit for one day of time served. The court then imposed two years' probation. The court also ordered appellant to pay restitution of $530 to NationsBank. Appellant did not thereafter file a petition for leave to appeal, for a writ of habeas corpus, or for relief under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act.

On June 23, 1994, appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, which the court ordered to be held in abeyance. Almost two years later, on June 7, 1996, a hearing was held on the motion for reconsideration. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court granted the motion and ordered that the entry of the judgments of conviction be stayed pursuant to Article 27, section 641. The court then placed appellant on unsupervised probation for a period of one day.

On June 8, 2005, appellant entered a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) to the charge of conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. Appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on September 9, 2005. As a result of the guilty findings on the uttering charges, appellant was ineligible for a "safety valve" provision under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,⁴ which would have entitled him to a possible reduction of his sentence. In particular, but for the uttering offenses, appellant would have had only one "criminal history point" and would have been eligible under the Guidelines for a sentence of seventy to eighty-seven months, as opposed to the mandatory ten years that was imposed.

On September 1, 2006, appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. In the petition, appellant averred that he "face[d] severe collateral consequences" from the uttering convictions and therefore a writ of error coram nobis vacating the convictions was proper. In particular, appellant challenged the June 16, 1994 convictions on the basis that, inter alia,⁵ his guilty plea was not supported by a factual basis on the record during the plea hearing, which is required by Maryland Rule 4-242(c), as well as the Maryland and federal constitutions.

On September 22, 2006, a hearing on appellant's coram nobis petition was held in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. At the start of the hearing, the State advised the court that the only issue in dispute was whether appellant's guilty plea was constitutional. The State (and the court) agreed that all other elements for a coram nobis petition were satisfied, including that appellant was facing "serious collateral consequence[s]." Appellant argued that, under Maryland Rule 4-242(c) and the Maryland and federal constitutions, "a factual basis for the guilty plea [must] [] be spread upon the record in open court by either the [c]ourt, the prosecutor, or the defense attorney." In other words, a public, on-the-record recitation of the evidence against a defendant is required as part of a guilty plea hearing.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made its ruling from the bench, denying appellant's petition for coram nobis relief. The following relevant colloquy took place between defense counsel and the court:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: But there is evidence here that in the record, crystal clear, that neither the Judge nor the defense attorney, nor the State spread upon the record the contents of the statement of charges, which is required under Bradshaw versus Stumpf [545 U.S. 175, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005)], and I submit under 242, Maryland Rule 4-242 and the Parker [v. State, 160 Md.App. 672, 866 A.2d 885 (2005)] case. That's all I have.

THE COURT: [Defense counsel], I'm going to find that there is no such requirement under either Maryland Rule 4-242(c), under the Maryland Declaration of Rights or Constitution, or under the United States Constitution. So I am going to deny your petition for writ of error coram nobis. And I find that the rule was complied with completely. That rule being once again Rule 4-242(c). That Judge Perry clearly explained the nature of the charge of uttering to the defendant.

Once again, referring to page 3, line 16, the Court: "She tells me you want to plead guilty to three counts of uttering, which accuses you of offering a forged instrument to obtain some benefit you are not entitled to, which carries a possible maximum of ten years." So the defendant was informed of the nature of the charges.

Judge Perry then went on [] [to] page 5, line 25, and then there's a 6 over on the right, and then it skips down to line 1: "Mr. Abrams, did you get a copy of the statement of charges in your case where it sets out what it is you are supposed to have done?"

I think that clearly refers to the statement of the charges filed February 16th, '94, which is present in the court file and not the indictment.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Can we have on the record, since you're making findings, the date he pled guilty, so we can link that up?

THE COURT: Sure. And the defendant pled guilty in this case on June 16th, 1994.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Four months later.

THE COURT: Four months later. "Mr. Abrams, did you get a copy of the statement of charges in your case where it sets out what you are supposed to have done?" I think that clearly refers to the Statement of Charges and not the indictment. The defendant responds, "Yes."

"The Court: Did you read it and understand it?

"The Defendant: Yes, ma'am.

"The Court: Do you believe if your case went to trial, that would be the State's evidence against...