State Of Md. v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 27 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2009.,No. 135,135 |
| Citation | 415 Md. 286,999 A.2d 1050 |
| Parties | STATE of Marylandv.George MATTHEWS. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
415 Md. 286
999 A.2d 1050
STATE of Maryland
v.
George MATTHEWS.
No. 135, Sept. Term, 2009.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
July 27, 2010.
Michael T. Morley, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, of Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent.
Argued before HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, BARBERA and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE, (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
BATTAGLIA, J.
The Respondent, George Matthews, pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on December 5, 2000, to murder in the second degree and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. On January 11, 2001, the court imposed consecutive sentences of thirty years for murder and ten years (five without possibility of parole) for the handgun violation. In 2007, Matthews filed a pro se motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, which was denied without a hearing, and Matthews appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, contending, inter alia, that under
1. Did the lower court properly deny Matthews's motion for a new trial without a hearing, when the motion was not timely filed within one year of the date that the trial court imposed sentence after Matthews pled guilty?
2. Alternatively, was the failure to hold a hearing on Matthews's untimely motion for a new trial harmless error, when the court was without jurisdiction to grant the motion?
We granted certiorari to consider these questions State v. Matthews, 411 Md. 599, 984 A.2d 243 (2009).
During the pendency of this case, the General Assembly enacted a statute, 1 subsequently codified at
Matthews was indicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for murder, robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, and related charges arising from the shooting death of Kenneth Marlow Cunningham. He pled guilty to second degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, and was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment for second degree murder, and a consecutive sentence of ten years (five years without possibility of parole) for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence.
In 2001 and again in 2004, Matthews filed two separate petitions under the Maryland Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act,2 which subsequently he withdrew. Later in 2004, Matthews filed a third petition (but only his first under Section 7-103(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article, which permits only a single petition “[f]or each trial or sentence”). After a hearing, the Circuit Court denied Matthews's postconviction petition. He filed an application for leave to appeal, which the Court of Special Appeals denied.
Subsequently, Matthews filed a “Motion for Exercise of Revisory Power Over An Enrolled Judgment Citing Mistake, Irregularity in the Proceedings,” contending that the Circuit Court's acceptance of his guilty plea and imposition of sentence were the result of mistake or irregularity. He claimed, as a consequence, that he was entitled to a new trial, or, in the alternative, that his sentences should be modified so as to run concurrently. After the Circuit Court denied the motion, Matthews appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which dismissed the appeal in an unreported opinion filed on September 11, 2007, the mandate issuing on October 11, 2007.
Undeterred, Matthews then filed, pro se, a “Motion for Appropriate Relief/New Trial,” alleging that a witness, Brian Sollers, had recanted, and providing a notarized, handwritten affidavit, dated August 11, 2003, in which Sollers claimed he “willfully and falsely gave detectives investigating a homicide misleading information ... to implicate George Mathews (sic)(Gee) in the homicide.” The Circuit Court denied the motion without a hearing. Matthews, again pro se, appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, asserting that “at the very least,” he was entitled to a hearing on his motion. The intermediate appellate court agreed and vacated the judgment of the Circuit Court, remanding for a hearing on the motion. Matthews v. State, 187 Md.App. 496, 979 A.2d 198.
At the time Matthews filed his motion, Maryland Rule 4-331 (2007) provided:
Rule 4-331. Motions for new trial.
(a) Within ten days of verdict. On motion of the defendant filed within ten days after a verdict, the court, in the interest of justice, may order a new trial.
(b) Revisory power. The court has revisory power and control over the judgment to set aside an unjust or improper verdict and grant a new trial:
(1) in the District Court, on motion filed within 90 days after its imposition of sentence if an appeal has not been perfected;
(2) in the circuit courts, on motion filed within 90 days after its imposition of sentence.
Thereafter, the court has revisory power and control over the judgment in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity.
(c) Newly discovered evidence. The court may grant a new trial or other appropriate relief on the ground of newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence in time to move for a new trial pursuant to section
(a) of this Rule:
(1) on motion filed within one year after the date the court imposed sentence or the date it received a mandate issued by the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals, whichever is later;
(2) on motion filed at any time if a sentence of death was imposed and the newly discovered evidence, if proven, would show that the defendant is innocent of the capital crime of which the defendant was convicted or of an aggravating circumstance or other condition of eligibility for the death penalty actually found by the court or jury in imposing the death sentence;
(3) on motion filed at any time if the motion is based on DNA identification testing or other generally accepted
scientific techniques the results of which, if proven, would show that the defendant is innocent of the crime of which the defendant was convicted.
(d) Form of motion. A motion filed under this Rule shall (1) be in writing, (2) state in detail the grounds upon which it is based, (3) if filed under section (c) of this Rule, describe the newly discovered evidence, and (4) contain or be accompanied by a request for hearing if a hearing is sought.
(e) Disposition. The court may hold a hearing on any motion filed under this Rule and shall hold a hearing on a motion filed under section (c) if the motion satisfies the requirements of section (d) and a hearing was requested. The court may revise a judgment or set aside a verdict prior to entry of a judgment only on the record in open court. The court shall state its reasons for setting aside a judgment or verdict and granting a new trial.
(Emphasis added.) In addressing Matthews's argument that he was entitled to a hearing under Section (e) of the Rule, the Court of Special Appeals considered our decision in Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 612, 622-23, 751 A.2d 473, 478 (2000), in which, interpreting a previous version of Rule 4-331, we had stated that “[t]he only basis for the court to deny a hearing is expressly provided for in the rule-a determination that the motion was filed late and did not comply with the requirements of § (d) of the Rule.” (Emphasis added.) The intermediate appellate court interpreted that remark as a requirement “that even an untimely and procedurally compliant motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence cannot be denied without a hearing.” Matthews, 187 Md.App. at 511, 979 A.2d at 207.
In the State's view, the Court of Special Appeals “effectively reads out of the rule the one year time limitation on a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.” The State argues that Section (e), which states the trial court “ shall hold a hearing on a motion filed under section
The State, relying on Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637, 821 A.2d 1 (2003), Love v. State, 95 Md.App. 420, 621 A.2d 910 (1993), and Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62, 237 A.2d 526 (1968), further contends that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Matthews's untimely motion. The State contrasts the instant case with Jackson, in which the motion was filed less than one year after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yonga v. State
...right of appeal.”In terms of first recognizing the new Writ of Actual Innocence, Douglas v. State was preceded by State v. Matthews, 415 Md. 286, 999 A.2d 1050 (2010). Matthews, to be sure, began as and essentially remained a case involving a Motion for New Trial under Rule 4–331(c). The op......
-
State v. Smith
...and denial of a motion for new trial—that were pending in the Court of Appeals on the statute's effective date); State v. Matthews, 415 Md. 286, 289–90, 999 A.2d 1050 (2010) (stating that then—newly enacted CP § 8–301, which addresses the petition for writ of actual innocence, is “procedura......
-
Hunt v. State
...Md. Rule 567 (a) (1962). During the intervening decades, that time limit was liberalized in stages. See State v. Matthews , 415 Md. 286, 299-312, 999 A.2d 1050, 1058-66 (2010) (setting forth the history of what is now Maryland Rule 4-331 ). Nonetheless, as of 2009, except in capital cases, ......
-
Lopez v. State
...but is an independent and collateral civil inquiry into the validity of the conviction and sentence”); accord State v. Matthews, 415 Md. 286, 308, 999 A.2d 1050 (2010); Arrington v. State, 411 Md. at 563, 983 A.2d 1071;Mosley v. State, 378 Md. 548, 559–560, 836 A.2d 678 (2003); State v. Kan......