Byrd v. State

Decision Date20 November 2020
Docket NumberNo. 4, Sept. Term, 2020,4, Sept. Term, 2020
Parties Dale K. BYRD v. STATE of Maryland
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Argued by Michael T. Torres, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.

Argued by Carrie J. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.

Amicus Curiae Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association in Support of the Petitioner: Nancy S. Forster, Esq., Forster & LeCompte, Towson, MD, Steven M. Klepper, Esq., Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD, Andrew V. Jezic, Esq., Jezic & Moyse, LLC, Wheaton, MD, Renée M. Hutchins, Esq., University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law, Washington, DC, Erica J. Suter, Esq., Law Offices of Erica J. Suter, LLC, Greenbelt, MD.

Argued before: Barbera, C.J.; McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ.

Barbera, C.J.

In March 2011, Petitioner, Dale K. Byrd, pled guilty at a hearing in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to having committed, in two separate cases, the crime of possession of heroin with intent to distribute it. Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent sentences of twelve years’ incarceration, all but four years suspended, and three years’ probation. In 2018, upon completion of the sentences and probation, Petitioner filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City a petition for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. The circuit court denied the petition. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court.

Petitioner now turns to this Court for the coram nobis relief he heretofore has been unable to obtain. He argues that the State failed to disclose to him, prior to his entry of the two guilty pleas, information relating to alleged misconduct of several of the officers involved in the arrests that prompted the subsequent charges and pleas. We are asked to determine whether the nondisclosure of that evidence of misconduct—which related not to the officers’ actions in Petitioner's arrests but instead to their conduct in other cases—is sufficient to render the pleas involuntary.1

Petitioner contends that the nondisclosure of the officers’ misconduct constitutes a suppression of impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and an implicit misrepresentation under Brady v. United States , 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). We hold, first, that the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Ruiz , 536 U.S. 622, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002) establishes that the right to impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland is exclusively a trial right. Thus, the State was under no obligation to disclose the potential evidence of misconduct to Petitioner prior to trial. We also hold that the nondisclosure did not constitute a misrepresentation in violation of Brady v. United States , as the State made no representation to Petitioner regarding the credibility of the officers at issue, and the alleged officer misconduct bore no relation to the charges to which Petitioner pled guilty. Therefore, the nondisclosure of the information did not render Petitioner's guilty pleas involuntary.

Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals upholding the circuit court's denial of coram nobis relief.

I.Facts and Procedural History

The dispositive facts in this case are not in dispute. On March 11, 2011, Petitioner pled guilty in the two separate cases, noted above, to possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. As to the first case, No. 110085017, the State proffered the following facts in support of the plea.

On March 19, 2010, between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., several Baltimore City police officers, including Officer Daniel Hersl, observed the 1700 block of Darley Avenue in Baltimore City from a covert location. The officers observed Petitioner standing on the porch of 1742 Darley Avenue, a vacant dwelling, when several unknown males approached him. Following a conversation between Petitioner and the unknown individuals, Petitioner retrieved small objects from beneath the molding cap of a pole on the porch, which he exchanged with those individuals for U.S. currency. The officers suspected that the objects contained a controlled dangerous substance. After several transactions, Petitioner walked across the street and entered the vacant dwelling at 1749 Darley Avenue. After approximately one minute, the officers observed him return to 1742 Darley Avenue and place several items under the molding cap.

Suspecting that Petitioner was using 1749 Darley Avenue as a stash house, the officers placed him under arrest. The officers then recovered three clear gel caps of suspected heroin from beneath the molding cap at 1742 Darley Avenue, in addition to seventy-five gel caps of suspected heroin from the living room of 1749 Darley Avenue. The evidence was submitted to the Evidence Control Unit where it tested positive as heroin, a Schedule I narcotic. The State indicated that, if called to testify at trial, the officers would identify Petitioner and state that the amount of heroin and the circumstances under which it was recovered indicated that it was not for personal use and that Petitioner intended to distribute it.

The State then proffered the following facts in support of Petitioner's guilty plea in the second case, No. 110235023. On August 9, 2010, at 6:50 p.m., Baltimore City officers received information from a confidential informant that a male was selling narcotics from a vacant house at 1749 Darley Avenue. Officer Thomas Wilson went to the 1700 block of Darley Avenue and observed Petitioner, matching the description given by the informant, speaking with an unknown individual.

Petitioner then went to the porch of 1749 Darley Avenue and retrieved suspected narcotics from the front doorframe, which he then handed to the unknown individual. Officer Wilson arrested Petitioner and recovered $356 from his person. He also retrieved one gel cap from the doorframe, which later tested positive as containing heroin. The State indicated that if called to testify at trial, the officer would identify Petitioner and state that the circumstances under which the heroin was recovered indicated that it was not for personal use and that Petitioner intended to distribute it.

In both cases Petitioner affirmed under oath to the court that the facts as proffered by the State were true. The court found there to be a factual basis in both cases and accepted Petitioner's pleas. The court then sentenced Petitioner to twelve years of incarceration on both counts to run concurrently, with all but four years suspended, in addition to three years of probation.

Undisclosed Misconduct of Officer Hersl and Officer Wilson

The first case

In relation to the arrest on March 19, 2010, Officer Daniel Hersl was one of the observing officers and swore out the Statement of Charges, so he likely would have been called to testify had the case gone to trial. Petitioner now claims that there were Internal Investigations Division records that impugned Officer Hersl's credibility that were not provided to Petitioner prior to his pleas. A Baltimore Sun article2 from 2018, which Petitioner introduced as an exhibit at his coram nobis hearing, stated that Hersl had "amassed dozens of complaints" that resulted in settlements in three civil suits against him. The Sun article further indicated that Officer Hersl, a former member of the infamous Baltimore Gun Trace Task Force, was also facing trial for his involvement in a criminal racketeering enterprise.

At the coram nobis hearing, Petitioner also submitted several orders from unrelated cases in which three judges3 all independently determined, after in camera review of Officer Hersl's internal investigations records, that there was information in the records that should have been discoverable to other criminal defendants. However, the State had not informed Petitioner of any of this prior to his guilty plea in the first case against him.4

The second case

In relation to the arrest on August 9, 2010, Officer Wilson was the sole observing, arresting, and submitting officer. He also swore out the Statement of Charges. Therefore, Officer Wilson likely would have been the only officer to testify for the State had the case gone to trial. The Baltimore Sun article Petitioner relied upon during his coram nobis hearing also contained allegations relating to Officer Wilson. The article explained that the Baltimore Police Department's Internal Investigations Division recommended that Officer Wilson be terminated in 2005 after he allegedly entered a home without a warrant, obtained a warrant afterwards, and then falsified paperwork to suggest that the warrant had been obtained prior to entering the home. The article stated that the police trial board subsequently found him guilty of misconduct and neglect of duty, recommended that he be suspended for fifteen days without pay, and issued a "severe letter of reprimand." The article also indicated that in 2003 a federal judge5 had accused Officer Wilson of lying in court. The State likewise had not informed Petitioner of any of Officer Wilson's alleged misconduct prior to Petitioner's guilty plea in the second case against him.

For purposes of evaluating Petitioner's arguments, and in the interest of judicial economy, we will assume that some or all of the allegations of police misconduct against Officers Hersl and Wilson are detailed in the officers’ internal investigations records and were valid and well-founded.6 We do note, however, that neither the circuit court nor the Court of Special Appeals made any such express findings.

Coram Nobis Proceedings

On January 25, 2018, after completing his sentence and period of probation, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis with respect to both convictions in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • United States v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • April 29, 2022
    ...so critical to the defense that it renders the guilty plea involuntary.” Byrd v. State, 471 Md. 359, 383, 241 A.2d 913, 927 (2020). Of course, Byrd is not binding on this Court. But, find its analysis persuasive. The Maryland Court of Appeals stated: “[V]acating a guilty plea in a case that......
  • Canales-Yanez v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 29, 2021
    ...who stands trial the right to receive material exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the possession of the State." Byrd v. State , 471 Md. 359, 372, 241 A.3d 913 (2020) (citing Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ; Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, ......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Cassilly
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 2021
    ...trial the right to receive material exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the possession of the State." Byrd v. State, 471 Md. 359, 372, 241 A.3d 913 (2020) (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 3......
  • Blake v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 2023
    ...who stands trial the right to receive material exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the possession of the State." Byrd v. State, 471 Md. 359, 372 (2020) Brady, 373 U.S. at 83; Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 (1972)). In United States v. Ruiz, the Supreme Court held that the rig......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT