State v. Pitt
Decision Date | 01 February 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 99, September Term, 2003.,99, September Term, 2003. |
Citation | 390 Md. 697,891 A.2d 312 |
Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Charles Lee PITT. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Kathryn Grill Graeff, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on brief), for petitioner.
Mark Colvin, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, GREENE, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (retired, specially assigned), JJ.
The plea agreement plays a crucial role in the administration of both this State's and the nation's criminal justice system. State v. Brockman, 277 Md. 687, 692-693, 357 A.2d 376 (1976). Indeed, courts have stated that plea agreements "eliminate many of the risks, uncertainties and practical burdens of trial, permit the judiciary and prosecution to concentrate their resources on those cases in which they are most needed, and further law enforcement by permitting the State to exchange leniency for information and assistance." Id. at 693, 357 A.2d at 381. See also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1471, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 758 (1970), People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 360 N.Y.S.2d 623, 318 N.E.2d 784 (N.Y. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1122, 95 S.Ct. 806, 42 L.Ed.2d 822 (1975). Therefore, this Court has held that "plea bargains, when properly utilized, aid in the administration of justice and, within reason, should be encouraged." Id. at 693, 357 A.2d 376, 357 A.2d at 381. Plea agreements account for the disposition of an overwhelming percentage of all criminal cases. See J. Bond, Plea Bargaining and Guilty Pleas §§ 1.02, 1.03, 1.07(2) (1975), A. Alschuler, Implementing the Criminal Defendant's Right to Trial: Alternatives to the Plea Bargaining System, 50 U. Chi. L.Rev. 931 (Summer 1983) (commenting that in some jurisdictions where plea bargaining has been prohibited, guilty pleas still account for a high percentage of felony convictions), S. Creaton, Plea Agreements: Progressing the Fight Against Crime or Bribing Witnesses?, 5 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 37 (2000) ( ), B. Kleinhaus, Two Masters: Evaluating Criminal or Civil Nature of the VWPA and MVRA Through the Lens of the Ex Post Facto Clause, The Abatement Doctrine, and the Sixth Amendment, 73 Fordham L.Rev. 2711 (May 2005) ( ); see also State v. Rodriguez, 125 Md.App. 428, 446, 725 A.2d 635, 644 (1999). Plea bargains aid the system because the number of cases that go to trial are reduced, thus, preventing the courts from becoming flooded and overcrowded. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 260, 92 S.Ct. 495, 498, 30 L.Ed.2d 427, 432 (1971) ().
In Maryland, Md. Rule 4-243 prescribes the procedures to be followed and the conditions to be observed regarding plea agreements. Section (a) of that Rule, as relevant, provides:
Section (c) addresses the effect of a plea agreement and, in some circumstances, its disposition. It provides:
It is well settled in Maryland that "plea agreements are at times entitled to judicial enforcement." Brockman, 277 Md. at 694, 357 A.2d at 381. See Tweedy v. State, 380 Md. 475, 488, 845 A.2d 1215, 1222 (2004) ( ), Jackson v. State, 120 Md.App. 113, 133, 706 A.2d 156, 166 (1998) ( ). In fact, our cases, and those of the Court of Special Appeals, make clear that we adhere to, and apply the teachings of, Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262, 92 S.Ct. at 499, 30 L.Ed.2d at 433, that "when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled." See, e.g., Miller v. State, 272 Md 249, 253-255, 322 A.2d 527 (1974) ( ), State v. Bittinger, 314 Md. 96, 101-102, 549 A.2d 10, 12 (1988) ( ).
The enforceability of the agreement is not the matter at issue in this case; it presents a question involving the admissibility of statements made by the accused during his plea negotiations. Such statements generally are inadmissible. Md. Rule 5-410;1 Fed.R.Evid. 410;2 see e.g., Elmer v. State, 353 Md. 1, 724 A.2d 625 (1999) ( ), see also United States v. Sockwell, 699 F.2d 213 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied 461 U.S. 936, 103 S.Ct. 2106, 77 L.Ed.2d 311 (1983). There are exceptions however, one of which this Court has recognized.
In Wright v. State, 307 Md. 552, 515 A.2d 1157 (1986), where the plea agreement, which the defendant breached, provided that the defendant's inculpatory statements would be used against him in such an event and the government neither rescinded nor breached the agreement, we held those statements were admissible against the defendant. Id. at 580, 515 A.2d at 1171. On the other hand, in Allgood v. State, 309 Md. 58, 522 A.2d 917 (1987), where the State repudiated the plea agreement, despite recognizing that the State's "repudiation of the plea agreement.... was not improper," id. at 71, 522 A.2d at 923, given the defendant's failure to pass a polygraph examination, which the trial court concluded was a part of the agreement, id. at 70-71, 522 A.2d at 923, the Court reached the opposite conclusion; we held that the inculpatory statements made by the defendant to a grand jury pursuant to the plea agreement were inadmissible at trial. Id. at 82, 522 A.2d at 928. The Allgood plea agreement did not contain the provision that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stone v. State
...qualified to testify about the value of his goods, Pitt v. State, 152 Md. App. 442, 465, 832 A.2d 267 (2003), aff'd, State v. Pitt, 390 Md. 697, 891 A,2d 312 (2006). See also Coffin v. State, 230 Md. 139, 142, 186 A.2d 216 (1962). Reisman's representation to the officers that the camera's v......
-
Falero v. State
...not so when the defendant does not perform his or her obligations under the bargain. Id. at 94, 857 A.2d 65;see also State v. Pitt, 390 Md. 697, 714–15, 891 A.2d 312 (2006). In addition, several Maryland cases suggest that vacating a guilty plea is an appropriate remedy for a defendant's br......
-
State v. Wills
...rendered Petitioner's statements inadmissible per se.7 I find support for this decision in the factually similar case of State v. Pitt, 390 Md. 697, 891 A.2d 312 (2006), wherein the Court of Appeals of Maryland analyzed “the proper balance when the defendant breaches the plea agreement and ......
-
McNamee v. State
...is presumptively qualified to testify to the value of his goods." Pitt v. State, 152 Md. App. 442, 465 (2003), aff'd on other grounds, 390 Md. 697 (2006). But a prosecutor's bare representation of a belief of approximate value does not qualify as "competent evidence." Juliano, 166 Md. App. ......