Knox v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 30 Sept.Term, 2007.,30 Sept.Term, 2007. |
| Citation | 404 Md. 76,945 A.2d 638 |
| Parties | Derrick Irwin KNOX v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Piedad Gomez, Asst. Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for petitioner.
Cathleen Brockmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent.
ARGUED BEFORE BELL, C.J., RAKER, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, JJ., and ALAN M. WILNER and DALE R. CATHELL, JJ. (Retired, specially assigned).
In this criminal case, we must interpret the language of Maryland Rule 4-215, Waiver of Counsel, and the meaning of the requirement of the Rule that the court shall "advise the defendant of the nature of the charges in the charging document, and the allowable penalties, including mandatory penalties, if any." The question in this case is whether the mandatory penalties for a subsequent offender fall within the requirement of the Rule. We shall hold that they do and that such notice is required before a court may find that a defendant waives the right to be represented by counsel.
Petitioner, Derrick Knox, was charged in a criminal information filed by the State's Attorney for Wicomico County with the criminal offenses of possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances and possession of controlled dangerous substances. He was arrested and then released on bond; he failed to appear for his initial appearance before the trial court on several occasions. Counsel entered his appearance as counsel for petitioner, and trial was scheduled for March 20, 2001. Pursuant to Md. Rule 4-245, the State served on defense counsel a "Revised Notice of Intent to Seek Enhanced Punishment for Subsequent Offender" on March 5, 2001. The notice informed petitioner, through counsel, as follows:
On March 20, petitioner again failed to appear for trial, the court issued a bench warrant, and counsel moved to strike his appearance. On May 2, 2001, the court signed an order granting counsel's motion to withdraw; the docket entries indicate that counsel's appearance was "removed" on August 1, 2001.
Ultimately, petitioner appeared before the court for an initial appearance on July 13, 2001. He appeared without counsel. The court advised petitioner of his right to counsel, that if he could not afford private counsel, he could apply to the public defender, and that if he appeared for trial without an attorney, the court could find that he waived h is right to counsel. As to the "allowable penalties" advice required by Rule 4-215, the court stated as follows:
"You understand that you're charged with possession — excuse me — I guess possession of cocaine, possession of CDS with intent to distribute which carries a maximum penalty of incarceration of up to 20 years, a fine of up to $25,000 or both; charged with possession of controlled dangerous substance, not marijuana, but carries a maximum penalty of incarceration of up to four years, a fine of up to $25,000 or both; and you're charged with possession of marijuana which carries a maximum penalty of incarceration of up to one year, a fine of up to a thousand dollars, or both."
Petitioner was held without bail until his trial date, September 13, 2001.
On the trial date, petitioner appeared essentially pro se. His former counsel was present, but had not re-entered his appearance as he had not been paid and he had other court obligations for that day. The court denied petitioner's request for a continuance and concluded that petitioner had waived his right to counsel. Petitioner proceeded to trial pro se and waived his right to a jury trial. He was convicted of all the charges and sentenced to twenty years at the Maryland Department of Corrections, five years suspended, with ten years of the sentence subject to parole only in accordance with § 4-305 of the Correctional Services Article1 as provided by Article 27, § 286(c)(2).2
Petitioner noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.3 Before that court, petitioner challenged primarily his waiver of counsel. He argued that because the trial court did not advise him of the mandatory penalties he faced as a subsequent offender, Rule 4-215 was violated and the court could not find that he waived counsel validly. The court rejected his argument, holding that "Rule 4-215 does not require the court to advise an unrepresented accused at his first appearance in court without counsel of enhanced penalties that his status as a subsequent offender may portend, or at anytime thereafter." Knox v. State, 173 Md.App. 246, 253, 918 A.2d 556, 560 (2007).
In rejecting petitioner's argument, the intermediate appellate court considered the interplay of Rule 4-215, waiver of counsel, and Rule 4-245, mandatory penalties, and reasoned that only Rule 4-245 governed mandatory penalties. The court noted, correctly, that Rule 4-215 is silent as to mandatory penalties and Rule 4-245 is specific. The court also noted that Rule 4-245 requires the State's Attorney to give the required notice of intent to seek the mandatory and enhanced penalties, fifteen days before sentencing, and that neither rule requires the State's Attorney to inform the court of the defendant's prior convictions or intent to seek enhanced penalties before the defendant is found to have waived counsel by inaction. The court noted that "Rule 4-245 appears to prohibit such an early disclosure to the trial court because, in the words of the Court of Special Appeals, `the defendant might elect a bench trial....'" Id. at 255, 918 A.2d at 562 (internal citation omitted). The court reasoned that the trial court would have no notice of the defendant's subsequent offender status because Rule 4-245 makes it clear that any notice to the trial judge of a defendant's past criminal history would be improper.4 The intermediate appellate court concluded that "the court has no obligation, under Rule 4-215, to advise the defendant of that which it has not been informed." Id. The court then found that the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Enhanced Punishment for Subsequent Offender, sent to petitioner's counsel, advised petitioner adequately of the mandatory penalties he might face as a subsequent offender.
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before this Court, which we granted in order to answer the following questions:
Before this Court, petitioner argues that the requirements of Rule 4-215, i.e., that an accused be advised of "the allowable penalties, including mandatory penalties, if any," includes the allowable and mandatory penalties for subsequent offenders. His argument is based on the plain language of the Rule, and the underlying purpose of the Rule, i.e., to protect the right to counsel. Inasmuch as petitioner was not advised of the applicable mandatory penalties as a subsequent offender, he continues, he did not properly waive his right to counsel.
The State maintains that the plain language of Rule 4-215(a)(3) does not require the court to advise a defendant of penalties that may be imposed because of a defendant's subsequent offender status. The State's interpretation requires the trial court to inform a defendant only of the penalties allowed for the charged crime. In an effort to protect defendant's right of self-representation, the State argues that "advising the defendant at his first appearance without counsel of the potential for enhanced punishment, if the defendant is a subsequent offender and the State's Attorney seeks an enhanced sentence as the result of a prior crime is cumbersome and may chill the defendant's exercise of his right to self-representation." The State embraces the reasoning of the Court of Special Appeals and finally, maintains that even under petitioner's interpretation of Rule 4-215, petitioner was advised properly.
The resolution of the issues in this case hinge on the interpretation of Rule 4-215 and its relationship to Rule 4-245. Rule 4-215 (2001) reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
"(a) First appearance in court without counsel. At the defendant's first appearance in court without counsel, or when the defendant appears in the District Court without counsel, demands a jury trial, and the record does not disclose prior compliance with this section by a judge, the court shall:
(1) Make certain that the defendant has received a copy of the charging document containing notice as to the right to counsel.
(2) Inform the defendant of the right to counsel and of the importance of assistance of counsel.
(3) Advise the defendant of the nature of the charges in the charging document, and the allowable penalties, including mandatory penalties, if any.
(4) Conduct a waiver inquiry pursuant to section (b) of this Rule if the defendant indicates a desire to waive cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malarkey v. State
...for judgment N.O.V. in a criminal case tried before a jury."), cert. denied, 252 Md. 733 (1969). As the Court stated in Knox v. State, 404 Md. 76, 85, 945 A.2d 638 (2008), "When we interpret the Rules of Procedure, we use the same canons and principles we use to construe statutes." See Hoil......
-
Dorsey v. State
...Rule 5-606, quoted earlier, we apply the same canons and principles that apply to the construction of statutes. See Knox v. State, 404 Md. 76, 85, 945 A.2d 638 (2008); State v. Williams, 392 Md. 194, 206, 896 A.2d 973 (2006). Therefore, we look first to the words of the rule. Knox, 404 Md. ......
-
Robinson v. State
...case has not unknowingly relinquished the basic protections that the Framers thought indispensable to a fair trial."); Knox v. State, 404 Md. 76, 945 A.2d 638 (2008) (holding that waiver of the fundamental right to counsel must be knowing and intelligent); Smith v. State, 375 Md. 365, 825 A......
-
Morse v. Erie Ins. Exch.
... ... See Kritsings v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 189 Md.App. 367, 378, 984 A.2d 395, 401 (2009), cert. denied, 413 Md. 229, 991 A.2d 1274 (2010). See also Buckley v ... ...