Catala v. State
| Decision Date | 27 April 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 1952, September Term, 2004.,1952, September Term, 2004. |
| Citation | 168 Md. App. 438,897 A.2d 257 |
| Parties | Ramon CATALA v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Renee M. Hutchins, Michael Heyse (Michael Millemann, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.
Diane E. Keller (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Panel: MURPHY, C.J., SALMON, DEBORAH S. EYLER, JJ.
A jury in the Circuit Court for Cecil County found Ramon Catala (Catala) guilty of sixteen traffic charges, all arising out of a highspeed police chase that occurred on March 10, 2004.
Immediately after the jury announced its verdict, Michael Halter, Esq., trial counsel for Catala, asked that the jury be polled. All twelve jurors were polled, and they unanimously reaffirmed that they had found appellant guilty of all charges. Mr. Halter then asked the trial judge to permit his client to remain free on $7,500 bond. The court granted counsel's request.
The court next discussed an appropriate date for sentencing, and the following transpired:
On September 14, 2004, Mr. Halter filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Catala. According to the motion, prior to trial, on August 12, 2004, Mr. Halter advised Catala at a "criminal motions hearing/status conference" that he had "accepted a position with the Maryland Office of the State's Attorney in and for Cecil County." Movant also said in his motion that he advised the defendant "that if for any reason any portion of the proceedings in this matter were to be scheduled later than September 24, 2004,"1 he would be "forced to withdraw his appearance in this matter due to a conflict of interest."
Mr. Halter also said in his withdrawal motion that he gave the defendant "the option of retaining other counsel on August 12, 2004," which was sixteen days before trial was set to commence. Counsel's motion to withdraw also represented that the defendant, when he learned of his counsel's future employment plans, stated that "he wished for ... [Mr. Halter] to continue to represent him as long as he was able."
Mr. Halter concluded the motion by saying that he was "slated to begin" his new position on September 15, 2004, and that he would "obviously be unable to continue in this case because of the conflict of interest."
The Circuit Court for Cecil County, on October 6, 2004, granted Mr. Halter's motion to withdraw as counsel.
On October 21, 2004, Catala appeared at the sentencing hearing without counsel. The following exchange then occurred:
(Emphasis added.)
There was no further discussion in regard to Catala's lack of representation. The court then segued to a discussion about whether appellant needed an interpreter. After that discussion, a Spanish-speaking interpreter was appointed. The court next considered the State's sentencing recommendations. The court, after giving Catala a chance to allocute, sentenced him to a total of two years' imprisonment with all suspended but ninety days. The court also imposed a fine of $7,500.
Catala filed this timely appeal and raises two questions:
1. Did the trial court err when, after receiving timely notice of a conflict of interest between Catala and his trial counsel, it failed to make any meaningful inquiry into the conflict or into whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to conflict-free counsel?
2. Did the trial court err when, after stating that Catala did not have a right to counsel at sentencing, it refused to grant a continuance so that the defendant could find sentencing counsel?
Appellant's trial took place on September 2 and 3, 2004. The sole contested issue was whether appellant was driving the car involved in the highspeed chase. As shown below, the State introduced evidence, which, if believed, showed that appellant was the driver. Appellant, however, testified that he was simply a passenger in the vehicle involved in the chase and that the car was driven by one Rafael Paulhino.
On March 10, 2004, at approximately 1:10 p.m., Maryland State Trooper Christopher Connor clocked a Nissan Maxima doing 72 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour speed zone. Trooper Connor pulled the Nissan over to the shoulder of I-95, then got out of his marked police car and approached the Maxima. As he was walking toward the vehicle, the officer looked through the rear window of the Nissan and noticed that the driver was wearing a collared shirt. He also noticed, by looking at the passenger side mirror, that the front-seat passenger was wearing a crew-neck shirt with no collar. Additionally, he observed that both occupants of the vehicle had shaved heads.
Before Trooper Connor could talk to the driver, the Nissan Maxima sped away. Trooper Connor ran to his patrol car, activated all of his emergency equipment, and gave chase. Most of the chase that followed was videotaped by a camera in Trooper Connor's police vehicle.
Trooper Connor observed the Nissan cutting in and out of traffic, following cars too closely, passing on the shoulder, and generally operating the motor vehicle in an aggressive and negligent manner. During the chase the Nissan reached speeds in excess of 130 miles per hour on I-95. The Nissan then left I-95 and sped down narrow, winding roads in Cecil County.
One of the many police officers involved in the chase was Trooper First Class Watkins.2 Trooper Watkins heard about the highspeed pursuit when he was in Harford County. He then drove to Route 222, near its intersection with Route 275. When advised that the Nissan was "heading back toward" Route 275, he started moving forward to get a "running start." When the fleeing Nissan passed his vehicle, the passenger side window was down, and Trooper Watkins had a "clear line of sight of the passenger," but not the driver. According to Trooper Watkins, Catala "was definitely not the passenger." The chase continued as the Nissan re-entered Route I-95 and later exited the interstate highway and drove into the truck parking lot at the Chesapeake House Restaurant. Trooper Watkins followed the Nissan into the parking lot.
Although Trooper Watkins did not see the Nissan come to a stop, its tires were still "smoking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smallwood v. State
...entitled to the effective assistance of counsel." 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) ; see Catala v. State , 168 Md. App. 438, 468–69, 897 A.2d 257 (2006) (holding that a defendant who appears without counsel at sentencing must be given opportunity to explain why). That......
-
Taylor v. State
...conflicts of counsel and applied the Sullivan analysis, where the defendant failed to object in a timely manner. See Catala v. State, 168 Md.App. 438, 897 A.2d 257,cert. denied,396 Md. 14, 912 A.2d 649 (2006) (applying the Sullivan rule to determine an ineffective assistance of counsel clai......
-
Podieh v. State
...that "a ‘mere theoretical conflict of interest’ does not violate a defendant's right to counsel." Id. (quoting Catala v. State , 168 Md. App. 438, 460, 897 A.2d 257 (2006) ). The Court of Special Appeals further held that even if there was an actual conflict of interest, Petitioner did not ......
-
Charles Newman v. State
...request the circuit court to consider and rule on the request contained in appellant's letter. We disagree. We conclude that Catala v. State, 168 Md. App. 438 (2006) is analogous. In that case, Catala was represented by counsel at trial, counsel withdrew prior to sentencing, and he appeared......
-
Conflicts of interest in criminal cases: should the prosecution have a duty to disclose?
...927-28 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (holding that counsel's upcoming employment in prosecutor's office did not create conflict); Catala v. State, 897 A.2d 257, 269 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) (rejecting defendant's argument that counsel's upcoming position with State's Attorney's Office created confl......
-
PRESUMED PREJUDICE: WHEN SHOULD REVIEWING STATE COURTS ASSUME A DEFENDANT'S CONFLICTED COUNSEL NEGATIVELY IMPACTED THE OUTCOME OF TRIAL?
...provided discovery, offered the defendant a plea deal, and then became defendant's defense attorney at trial); see also Catala v. State, 897 A.2d 257, 260, 271 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) (applying Sullivan and finding no actual conflict of interest where during the course of representing the......