Weathers v. State
Citation | 231 Md.App. 112,149 A.3d 1194 |
Decision Date | 01 December 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 1361 Sept. Term, 2015,1361 Sept. Term, 2015 |
Parties | Robert Antoine Weathers v. State of Maryland |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Mark Colvin (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Gary E. O'Connor (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Woodward, Graeff, Raymond G. Thieme, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
As Judge Moylan, writing for this Court, has stated: “The law could not be more clear that a wide discretion is vested in the trial judge to control the course of the trial and the exercise of such discretion will not be reversed on appellate review except on those rare cases where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion.”
Thrifty Diversified, Inc. v. Thomas R. Searles , 48 Md.App. 605, 615, 429 A.2d 270 (1981). This is one of those rare cases.
Appellant, Robert Antoine Weathers, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland of theft of property with a value of at least $10,000 but less than $100,000. After he was sentenced to fifteen years and ordered to pay $40,000 in restitution, appellant timely appealed. Summarily rephrased, appellant presents the following question for our review:
Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in finding that there was no meritorious reason for appellant's request to discharge counsel and in denying his request for a postponement?
For the following reasons, we agree that the court abused its discretion in this case and shall vacate the judgment of conviction.
Appellant was charged with numerous thefts from jewelry and liquor stores in Baltimore County, Maryland during the spring and early summer of 2014. Because of potential conflicts with the Office of the Public Defender involving a codefendant, Spencer K. Gordon was assigned to represent appellant in this case as well as three other cases that were charged in the Baltimore County Circuit Court. Ultimately, resolution of this appeal depends on our review of the June 8, 2014, denials of appellant's requests to discharge Gordon. However, we shall first include a brief discussion of the background of this issue for context.1
On December 8, 2014, at a pretrial postponement hearing involving three of appellant's cases, as well as several cases for the codefendant, Robin Tracy Nelson, appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with Gordon by informing the Chief Administrative Judge as follows:
I don't think I'm going to use Mr. Gordon, Your Honor, because he's ineffective assistance of counsel as of right now. I haven't talked to him or nothing. He's trying to move the case forward, and I'm going to have a paid attorney, Roland Brown, represent me on the rest of these cases.
Appellant maintained that he not only wanted to be tried by a jury, but he also wanted all of his cases tried separately. He further informed the court that After earlier acknowledging that Gordon was not present during the beginning of this hearing, having gone to another courtroom, the court remarked “[i]f you wish to get new counsel or if you're dissatisfied with counsel in any way, you need to take care of that before you come back here.”
After the cases were postponed, and following a short recess, Gordon appeared in court and the court then turned to appellant's request to discharge counsel. Appellant explained why he wanted to discharge Gordon:
[APPELLANT]: Like I said, he was ready to go to trial on this case up here right here, and he hasn't done any type of investigating or any type of homework whatsoever; so how can we move forward when he don't even know anything about the case?
The court asked Gordon if it was his understanding that the cases would be postponed and Gordon replied:
The court asked Gordon if he was prepared to go forward if the case were not postponed, and Gordon answered:
Your Honor, if push had come to shove, I think I could have gone forward on it. I know that Mr. Weathers hired Mr. Brown on another case. From talking to him at the jail, I think his preference would be for the case to be postponed so that he could try to get Mr. Brown in on that—whatever case is going to go to trial, I think he wants Mr. Brown in on that.
The court then denied appellant's request to discharge Gordon, stating:
Approximately three months later, on March 3, 2015, appellant and Gordon appeared before the Administrative Judge Designee (hereinafter “Administrative Judge”). At that time, the Administrative Judge was informed that appellant had four theft cases where he was represented by Gordon, and another case where he was represented by Roland Brown. After being informed that appellant had expressed dissatisfaction with Gordon, the Administrative Judge inquired whether Gordon was prepared for trial and Gordon replied:
[DEFENSE ATTORNEY GORDON]: Well, in all candor, Your Honor, the answer to that would be no, and the reason for that is because the last time the cases were in, [the prosecutor] intended to try one in particular. That's the one that I prepared for on that date, and I did not have any reason to think that that would not be the one to be tried first this time until yesterday when he told me that, in fact, it was one of the other ones that he is going to try first which is why my paralegal now has the files and is organizing materials so that I can prepare properly for that one.
The State informed the court that this case was originally scheduled to be tried a week later, but that, because the attorney for appellant's co-defendant was unavailable, the case would need to be postponed. Gordon informed the Administrative Judge that he could be prepared to proceed in this case, but that it was possible that he would ask for a postponement. Gordon then continued:
[DEFENSE ATTORNEY GORDON]: Yes. And for the record, just one additional thing. Obviously, Mr. Weathers wanted to be represented by Mr. Brown. I mean, they did—his family did retain Mr. Brown. I guess only had the money to retain him on one case. Obviously, the State can't be forced to try any particular case, but I did speak with his mother this morning; and she has been trying to get in touch with Mr. Brown to make arrangements to retain him on some or all of the remaining cases, so I hope to get confirmation one way or the other on that within the next couple of days.
The court then asked appellant to give his reasons for wanting to discharge Gordon, and the following ensued:
After Gordon again assured the Administrative Judge that there was no reason why he could not be prepared, the court found there was no meritorious reason to discharge Gordon, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Piney Orchard Cmty. Ass'n v. Md. Dep't of the Env't
-
Urquhart v. State
...asking "have you met with [trial counsel] before today?" trial counsel responded "[n]o, Your Honor"). See also Weathers v. State , 231 Md.App. 112, 149 A.3d 1194, 1209 (2016) ("[Defendant's counsel] conceded that he had not yet discussed the surveillance video with appellant. Indisputably, ......
-
Cousins v. State
...counsel. A complete breakdown in communication is considered "good cause" to discharge counsel. Weathers v. State , 231 Md.App. 112, 149 A.3d 1194, 1210 (2016) (Graeff, J., concurring) (citing McKee v. Harris , 649 F.2d 927, 931 (2d Cir. 1981) ). In determining whether a court abused its di......
-
Williams v. State
...with Maryland Rule 4-215 is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Weddington, 457 Md. 589, 598-99 (2018); Weathers v. State, 231 Md. App. 112, 131 (2016). Strict compliance with the Rule is mandatory, and any departure therefrom constitutes reversible error. Williams v. State......