Gant v. State, 161

Decision Date05 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 161,161
Citation16 Md.App. 382,297 A.2d 327
PartiesDavid Lee GANT v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Arthur D. Condon, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

James G. Klair, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Mary Elizabeth Kurz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John C. Hancock, State's Atty., for Charles County, on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before ORTH, C. J., and MOYLAN and MENCHINE, JJ.


David Lee Gant has appealed his conviction and sentence after entry of a plea of guilty, upon the ground that the trial court is accepting the guilty plea did so without the required affirmative showing that it was intelligently and voluntarily made, and that waiver of federal constitutional rights of the accused was not affirmatively established of record. The record clearly shows that the trial judge carefully explained to the accused his constitutional right against compulsory self-incrimination; his right to trial by jury, and his right to be confronted by his accusers, as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 228, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274. It also affirmatively appears that the plea of guilty was entered by the accused intelligently and voluntarily in all requirements enunciated in McCall v. State, 9 Md.App. 191, 263 A.2d 19, and Williams v. State, 10 Md.App. 570, 271 A.2d 777, but for the single exception that the accused was not advised of the possible consequence of such a plea.

This Court, speaking through Chief Judge Murphy, in Duvall v. State, 5 Md.App. 484, 248 A.2d 401, raised storm signals of warning in announcing to the trial courts that the record must make an affirmative showing '* * * particularly as to the length of the sentence that could be imposed upon him by the court.' In Mathews v. State, 15 Md.App. 686, 292 A.2d 131, 1 we traced the decisional history of Duvall v. State, supra, and reviewed every published opinion of this Court pertaining to a guilty plea, and at page 692, 292 A.2d at page 134, declared:

'Before a plea of guilty is accepted, the record should clearly show compliance with Boykin, McCall and Williams. It should also demonstrate that the accused knows the length of the maximum sentence that the trial court can impose for the offense or offenses.'

We reiterate our holding in Mathews that these are inflexible requirements, the absence of any of which will require reversal.

Judgment reversed. Case remanded for a new trial.

Mandate to issue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Howard v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 1, 1973
    ...maximum sentence to which he was subjecting himself before a tendered plea of guilty can be accepted by the trial judge. Gant v. State, 16 Md.App. 382, 297 A.2d 327 and Matthews v. State, 15 Md.App. 686, 292 A.2d 131, cert. den. September 19, 1972. Without such an affirmative showing it can......
  • English v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 2, 1973
    ...the length of the maximum sentence authorized to be imposed upon conviction of the offense to which he is pleading. Gant v. State, 16 Md.App. 382, 297 A.2d 327, 1972; Mathews v. State, 15 Md.App. 686, 292 A.2d 131. But, informing the accused that he may be referred to the Patuxent Instituti......
  • Bryant v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 4, 1981
    ...court can accept a guilty plea. Mathews v. State, 15 Md.App. 686, 692, 292 A.2d 131, cert. denied, 266 Md. 739 (1972); Gant v. State, 16 Md.App. 382, 297 A.2d 327 (1972). In Mathews, supra, we ordered a new trial for an appellant where the record did not affirmatively demonstrate his being ......

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