Graves v. State

• Decision Date: 18 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2832,Sept. Term, 2011.,2832
• Citation: 81 A.3d 516,215 Md.App. 339
• Parties: Gregory James GRAVES v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

215 Md.App. 339

81 A.3d 516

Gregory James GRAVES

v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 2832, Sept. Term, 2011.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 18, 2013.

Paresh Patel (James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, on the brief), Greenbelt, MD, for Appellant.

Edward J. Kelley (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: DEBORAH S. EYLER, GRAEFF, and HOTTEN, JJ.

GRAEFF, J.

On March 10, 1998, Gregory Graves, appellant, pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County to one count of robbery with a deadly weapon, Case Number 97–1476B, and two counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, Case Numbers 97–1468B and 97–1477B. The court sentenced appellant to concurrent 20 year terms for each count, with all but five years suspended, followed by five years of probation.

On October 26, 2011, appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, alleging that the convictions subjected him to a potentially greater sentence in pending federal court charges. The circuit court granted appellant's petition with respect to the robbery conviction and his handgun conviction in Case Number 97–1477B. It denied, however, his petition with respect to the handgun conviction in Case Number 97–1468B.

On appeal from the denial of his petition with respect to Case Number 97–1468B, appellant presents three questions for our review,¹ which we have reordered, reworded, and consolidated into the following questions ²:

1. Did the circuit court err in finding that appellant waived his right to coram nobis relief?

2. Did the circuit court err in denying appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis because his guilty plea was involuntary?

For the reasons set forth below, we answer both questions in the affirmative, and therefore, we shall reverse the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At the March 10, 1998, plea hearing, appellant and his co-defendant, Jeffery McDowney, pleaded guilty to several charges involving robberies of restaurants in Prince George's County. Mr. McDowney entered his pleas prior to appellant.

With respect to Case Number 97–1468,³ the conviction at issue here, which involved a robbery of a Little Caesar's Pizza restaurant, the prosecutor read the following facts that would have been adduced at trial:

[T]he evidence would show that on June 15th, 1997 approximately 2055 hours Mr. McDowney and co-defendant Mr. Graves entered Little Caesar's Pizza restaurant on Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Prince George's County, Maryland. Mr. McDowney threatened to smack one of the employees in the face with a gun if she didn't shut up.

The witness ran to the back of the establishment to call 911. The defendant Mr. McDowney displayed the handgun, and demanded funds from a Tekia Govan. The co-worker Mr. Reid was told to open the register, and he complied. And Mr. McDowney and Mr. Graves fled with fifty-five dollars in U.S. currency from the restaurant located at the aforesaid address[.]

In that case the State would call Vincent Reid and co-employee Tekia Govan, Alphonso Hayes, and Terrell Jones of the Prince George's County Police Department.

After the prosecutor read the facts underlying the co-defendant's and appellant's additional pleas, which are not at issue here, the court accepted Mr. McDowney's pleas and sentenced him.

Immediately thereafter, the court began its plea colloquy with appellant. The court asked appellant: “Now, you were here when [the prosecutor] was reading off all the facts of those different individual robberies. Did you hear what he said?” Appellant responded in the affirmative. Appellantalso agreed that he had “talked this matter over” with his attorney, that his attorney had answered all his questions about the case, that he had “read over the sheet that talks about your rights that [he] would have had, had [he] gone to trial,” and that he understood those rights and he was giving them up.

Appellant's attorney then informed the court that appellant would

enter pleas in case 97–1468B, Count 2, the handgun charge, 20 years, suspend all but 5. As to case 97–1477B, Count number 2, 20 years, suspend all but 5, another handgun charge. And as to case 97–1476B, 20 years suspend all but 5. Five years probation, and all the pleas are to run concurrently.

Appellant acknowledged that he understood the agreement he was making, that he was making the plea because he “really [was] guilty of the[ ] charges,” and that no one made any promises or forced him to enter his plea. The court determined that there was “a factual basis on which to accept the plea, and the plea [was] freely, voluntarily, understandingly made.” It then accepted the plea and sentenced appellant to concurrent 20 year terms for each count, with all but five years suspended, followed by five years of probation.

On October 26, 2011, appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, requesting that the court vacate his convictions on all three counts. He argued that the pleas must be vacated for three reasons: (1) “in the plea colloquy, there [wa]s no mention of the elements of the charges, no description of the nature of the charges,” and “no mention that [appellant] and his attorney discussed the nature or elements of the charges”; (2) “the court failed to examine [him] on the record that he understood his rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), and as required under Maryland Rule 4–242(c)(1);” and (3) the statements of facts proffered by the State was insufficient as a matter of law to find him guilty of the charges.

Appellant filed a declaration asserting that, before he entered his pleas, his attorney did not review with him the elements of the offenses and did not explain his appellate rights. He stated that he did not understand “that it was the responsibility of the judge and my attorney to make sure I understood these things.” He contended that, had his attorney “advised [him] that there was not a sufficient factual basis to prove the elements of the charged crimes, [he] would not have accepted the plea offer and pleaded guilty.”

Appellant stated that he was facing significant collateral consequences as a result of his conviction, asserting that he was scheduled to go to trial the next week in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on robbery charges. He asserted that, if his state convictions were “not vacated, they will dramatically increase his federal sentence.” ⁴

On December 7, 2011, the State filed its Response in Opposition to Writ of Error Coram Nobis. It argued that coram nobis relief was unavailable to appellant because he waived his right to seek such relief by failing to file an application for leave to appeal the judgments of conviction. On the merits, the State asserted: “[T]he record more than adequately shows that, based on the totality of the circumstances, [appellant's] plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, with an understanding of his trial rights.”

On January 6, 2012, the court held a hearing on appellant's petition. At the outset of the hearing, the State conceded that coram nobis relief was warranted for two of the convictions. With respect to Case Number 97–1476B, the prosecutor agreed that the record did not indicate the charge to which appellant was pleading. With respect to Case Number 97–1477B, the prosecutor acknowledged that appellant pled guilty to a handgun charge, but the facts in the record indicated that appellant had used a knife in the robbery associated with that charge.⁵ Based on these admitted deficiencies, the court granted appellant's petition relating to those convictions, Case Numbers 97–1476B and 97–1477B, vacating the convictions and ordering a new trial.

With respect to Case Number 97–1468B, appellant's counsel argued that there was “nothing on the record to reflect the specific offense” to which appellant pleaded guilty, and there was nothing to indicate that appellant understood the nature of the offense, which was described at the hearing only as a handgun charge. Counsel also asserted that the factual basis offered by the State in support of the charge was inadequate, as the facts “merely reflect[ed] that [he] was present” during the robbery and “almost all the facts concern what the co-defendant Mr. McDowney did.”

The State responded: “[U]nfortunately this is a case where trial counsel only put on the record that [appellant] was pleading to the handgun charge,” and “the State is not in a good position to argue that on the record [appellant] was advised of the nature and elements of the offenses as required” under Maryland law. The State argued, however, that it was “hanging [its] hat on” the argument that appellant waived his right to coram nobis relief by not filing an application for leave to appeal from his guilty plea. Regarding the sufficiency of the statement of facts, the State argued that appellant's act of “entering the establishment while the co-defendant committed the crime and then fleeing with the co-defendant and the money is sufficient.”

Appellant's trial counsel testified at the coram nobis hearing that, prior to the guilty plea on March 10, 1998, he discussed with appellant the elements of the crime of use of a handgun during the commission of a crime of violence. He stated that, after the plea was entered, appellant did not indicate that he wanted to appeal the plea, as “[h]e seemed very happy with the terms.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied appellant's petition for coram nobis relief with respect to Case Number 97–1468B for the following reasons: (1) the trial court “explicitly determine[d] that there was a factual basis on which to accept the plea”; (2) the plea was “freely, voluntarily, and understandingly made”; and (3) appellant waived his right to pursue coram nobis relief because he did not file an application for leave to appeal his convictions within...