State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 13 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 47, Sept. Term, 2014.,47, Sept. Term, 2014. |
| Citation | 443 Md. 572,117 A.3d 1093 |
| Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Kerryann N. SMITH. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Mary Ann Ince, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for petitioner.
Jonathan R. Fellner (Stanley Baritz, Rockville, MD, on brief), for respondent.
Argued before BARBERA, C.J., HARRELL,* BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ADKINS, McDONALD, WATTS, JJ.
In accordance with Maryland Rule 8–303(f), we granted Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari in order to answer the following multi-faceted question:
Did the Court of Special Appeals incorrectly reverse the circuit court's denial of [Respondent]'s petition for a writ of coram nobis where [Respondent] 1) had waived her coram nobis claims, 2) failed to meet her burden of proving that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, and 3) was barred from seeking a writ of coram nobis on grounds of laches? [ 1 ]
On the first issue of whether Respondent waived her right to coram nobis relief, a majority of this Court holds that Respondent did not waive her coram nobis claims by failing to file an application for leave to appeal her prior conviction because Maryland Code (2014 Supp.), § 8–401 of the Criminal Procedure Article applies retrospectively to Respondent's case. The majority further holds that Respondent did not waive her right to pursue coram nobis relief by not moving to withdraw her guilty plea or filing a petition for post-conviction relief when those avenues of relief were available to her.
On the second issue of whether Respondent's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, a different majority of the Court holds that Respondent's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, and that testimony from Respondent's counsel concerning having advised Respondent prior to the guilty plea of the nature of the charges against her was admissible at the coram nobis hearing for the purpose of determining whether Respondent pled “ voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge” within the meaning of Maryland Rule 4–242(c).
Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals is vacated.
BARBERA, C.J., joined in Part I by GREENE, ADKINS, and McDONALD, JJ., and joined in Part II by GREENE and ADKINS, JJ.
In 2003, Kerryann Smith (“Smith”), Respondent, pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to having engaged in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The court accepted the terms of the agreement and Smith's guilty plea, then sentenced her to six months' incarceration, all suspended in favor of a one-year term of supervised probation. In January 2012, Smith, who is not a U.S. citizen, but holds a green card, attempted to reenter the United States after a brief trip to Canada. The United States Department of Homeland Security detained her based on the 2003 conviction and initiated removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act.1
Smith filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in February 2012 seeking to have the conspiracy conviction vacated on the ground that her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. She rested that contention, in part, on the assertion that she had not been informed at the time of the plea of the elements or essential nature of the crime of conspiracy, thereby violating Maryland Rule 4–242(c) and the federal constitutional protections underpinning the Rule. Following a hearing in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Smith was denied relief. Smith appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals, concluding that Smith's guilty plea was invalid and must be vacated, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court.
We granted the State's petition to review the judgment of the intermediate appellate court. The State argues, first, that Smith waived her right to seek coram nobis relief because she had neither applied for leave to appeal the conviction nor sought to withdraw the plea or seek post-conviction relief and, second, that Smith's claims of error in the taking of the plea are without merit, in any event.
Whether the State is correct that Smith waived the right to seek coram nobis relief depends in the first instance on whether Maryland Code (2014 Supp.), § 8–401 of the Criminal Procedure Article (“CP § 8–401 ”) applies to Smith's case. The General Assembly enacted CP § 8–401, with an effective date of October 1, 2012. CP § 8–401 provides: “The failure to seek an appeal in a criminal case may not be construed as a waiver of the right to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis.”
In Part I of this opinion, the Court holds that CP § 8–401 applies retrospectively to Smith's case. Consequently, Smith's failure to apply for leave to appeal from her 2003 conspiracy conviction does not constitute a waiver of her right to seek coram nobis relief. The Court further holds, in Part I, that Smith's failing to move to withdraw her guilty plea or file a petition for post-conviction relief, likewise, did not constitute a waiver of her right to pursue coram nobis relief.
For the reasons set forth in Part II of this opinion, I disagree with the Court that Smith's guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made and, therefore, I dissent to that holding. The record of the hearing at which Smith pleaded guilty does not reflect that she was informed of the nature of the crime of conspiracy, which Maryland Rule 4–242(c), giving full effect to the federal constitution, demands. In my view, Smith is entitled to have the judgment of conviction vacated.
On August 29, 2002, Smith was indicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on charges of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, simple possession of that controlled dangerous substance, and possession with intent to distribute it within a specific distance of a school. The parties, with Smith represented by Harry A. Suissa (“Suissa”), entered into plea negotiations, and an agreement was presented at a hearing held on January 8, 2003.
The prosecutor presented the terms of the agreement: The agreement required the charging document to be amended from the charge of possession with intent to distribute marijuana to conspiracy to distribute it. The court permitted the amendment.
The court then informed Smith that the conspiracy charge carried a maximum penalty of five years in jail, a $15,000 fine, or both. The court also explained that under the terms of the plea agreement the court “could give you no executed incarceration, but I could impose the full five years and suspend it and place you ... on a period of probation and if you violated the probation then you could be back before me and you could go to jail if you violate the probation.” At that point, Suissa interjected: “One ... thing that I would need Your Honor to do if Your Honor's inclined to do, on any suspended sentence, [is to impose] no more than 364 days, only because she has—she's been in this country 14 years, she has a green card, this is her first offense, but that could affect her.” The prosecutor responded: “[L]ooking at [Smith]'s record, I'm not going to object at this point to that request.” The court then examined Smith on the plea:
The court advised Smith of the trial rights she was waiving by pleading guilty and asked if she understood those rights. Smith acknowledged that she understood. The colloquy between the court and Smith continued:
The prosecutor then proffered facts in support of Smith's plea to the conspiracy charge:
To continue reading
Request your trial