Richardson v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 41,41 |
| Citation | 381 Md. 348,849 A.2d 487 |
| Parties | Kurt H. RICHARDSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Sherrie B. Glasser, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender and Stacy W. McCormack and Margaret L. Lanier, Asst. Public Defenders, on brief), Baltimore, for Petitioner.
Shannon E. Avery, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of MD, on brief), Baltimore, for Respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether showing the defendant, either singly or as a member of a group of defendants, a videotape of a judge giving the advice that Maryland Rule 4-215(a)1 requires and subsequently taking him or her before a judge for bail review comply with that rule and to determine the effect, if any, that procedure has on a subsequent determination that the defendant has waived counsel by inaction, pursuant to Rule 4-215(c) or (d).2 The Court of Special Appeals, rather than answer either of the issues, remanded the case to the Circuit Court, with instructions that it do so. We shall reverse.
The petitioner, Kurt H. Richardson, was arrested and charged with felony and misdemeanor drug offences and resisting arrest. When he appeared for his bail hearing, rather than being taken directly before the court, he, along with a group of defendants, was shown a videotape. On the videotape,3 a judge provided advice and instructions, generally as follows:
Bail Review Instructions, Official Transcript of Proceedings before Honorable Alan T. Karlin, Judge, October 28, 2003.
After viewing the video, the petitioner and the other members of the group were taken into the courtroom, before the bail review judge. Having inquired, "[t]his group has seen the video and been advised of their rights, is that correct[ ]" and received the response,4 "Yes, sir, they have," the judge proceeded to review each defendant's case individually. With respect to the petitioner, with the exception of advising the petitioner that his bail would remain the same and hearing from the representative from Pretrial Release Services, that review, in its entirety, consisted of the following:
"THE COURT: The bail remains the same."
(Official Transcript of Proceedings (Arraignment Hearing), August 18, 1998). The record thus reflects that the bail review judge never inquired of the petitioner personally whether he was present when the video was shown, whether he understood its contents, or whether he had any questions regarding the video. Nevertheless, "The Bail Review Docket" recorded that the District Court Judge did make "certain the defendant received a copy of the charging document; informed the defendant of right to, and importance of, counsel; complied w/rule 4-215; referred defendant to public defender; advised felony defendant of right to preliminary hearing; advised defendant of right to jury trial; ordered bail to remain the same."
When the petitioner next appeared in the District Court, for his preliminary hearing, the felony drug charge against him was nolle prossed and his case was postponed. On that occasion, the only exchange between the petitioner and the court was, as follows:
(Court Proceedings, September 17, 1998).
The petitioner sought a postponement to get counsel on his next appearance in the District Court. When that request was denied, he prayed a jury trial. In its entirety, the record of that appearance reads:
(Court Proceedings, December 18, 1998).
The next appearance the petitioner made in court was in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He appeared without counsel and the court determined that the petitioner had waived counsel by inaction, pursuant to Rule 4-215(d). The basis for that determination is reflected in following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muhammad v. State
...Judge Bell similarly made note of the fact that Rule 4-215 goes beyond what is constitutionally mandated in Richardson v. State, 381 Md. 348, 367 n. 11, 849 A.2d 487 (2004): It is important to note that Rule 4-215 imposes requirements that exceed constitutional standards. State v. Wischhuse......
-
Whitney v. State
...the proceedings against them. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-85, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Richardson v. State, 381 Md. 348, 849 A.2d 487 (2004). The right to counsel entails the right to effective assistance of counsel. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 1......
-
Broadwater v. State
...trial, the court shall permit the defendant to explain the appearance without counsel." Md. Rule 4-215(d); see Richardson v. State, 381 Md. 348, 364-65, 849 A.2d 487, 497 (2004). If the trial court finds the reason or reasons unmeritorious, it may determine that the defendant waived counsel......
-
Walther v. Sovereign Bank
...a jury trial, however, there ordinarily must exist a "knowing and intelligent" waiver of the right. See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 381 Md. 348, 366, 849 A.2d 487, 498 (2004) (waiver of Sixth Amendment fundamental right to counsel in criminal proceedings valid if "knowing and intelligent");......