Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2792,2792 |
| Parties | ANDRE WALTER WILLIAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Washington County
Case No. 21-K-14-050701
UNREPORTED
Berger, Reed, Raker, Irma, S., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Reed, J.
* This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
Andre Walter Williams ("Appellant") was arrested for and charged with armed robbery, second-degree burglary, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and six related offenses. Dissatisfied with the representation of the assistant public defender assigned to his case, Appellant requested that the court permit him to discharge his attorney so that he could obtain substitute representation. Finding no merit in support of Appellant's motion, the court denied his request. Rather than retaining the services of his assistant public defender, Appellant elected to proceed pro se.
On June 29, 2015, Appellant was tried by a jury empaneled in the Circuit Court for Washington County. With the exception of kidnapping, which the State had nolle prossed, that jury convicted Appellant of each of the counts with which he had been charged. The court sentenced Appellant to 20 years' incarceration for armed robbery, a consecutive term of 15 years for second-degree burglary, and another consecutive sentence of 10 years for false imprisonment. For sentencing purposes, the court merged Appellant's remaining convictions.
The post-conviction court permitted Appellant to file a belated appeal, after which he noted this appeal. He presents the following three issues for our review, which we have reworded slightly:
We answer Appellant's first question in the affirmative, and shall, therefore, reverse the judgments of the circuit court. Given that our resolution of the first issue is dispositive of this appeal, we shall not address the merits of Appellant's remaining contentions.
The resolution of this appeal does not depend on the facts underlying the crimes of which Appellant was convicted. We shall, therefore, forgo a recitation of those facts, and proceed directly to the procedural history on which our holding is based. See Kennedy v. State, 436 Md. 686, 688 (2014); Teixeira v. State, 213 Md. App. 664, 666-67 (2013). At a pre-trial hearing held on April 6, 2015, Appellant requested permission to discharge the assistant public defender who had been assigned to his case so that he could be assigned substitute representation. Appellant cited several reasons for his request. Those reasons included: (i) the purported failure of his attorney to investigate records pertaining to the schizoaffective disorder with which Appellant had been diagnosed; (ii) his attorney's not having filed motions to suppress or dismiss; (iii) Appellant's not yet having been provided the evidence that had been produced during discovery; (iv) his attorney's alleged failure to "properly investigate the leads" that Appellant had given him; (v) his general distrust of counsel; and (vi) disagreements regarding trial strategy. The court permitted defense counsel to respond to Appellant's accusations. In so doing, counsel averred that the Office of the Public Defender had (i) sought Appellant's psychiatric records; (ii) retained a psychologist to whom it had sent Appellant medical records, and with whom Appellanthad met; (iii) thoroughly investigated the merits of Appellant's alternative perpetrator theory; and (iv) provided Appellant with all of the discovery materials, save for the Bank's surveillance footage. When the court offered Appellant an opportunity to reply, he claimed that a representative of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") had advised him that the SSA had not received a request for his psychiatric records. The court denied Appellant's request, ruling:
The following colloquy ensued:
The court then apprised Appellant of the charges that had been filed against him, as well as the penalties for each. Thereafter, the State interjected:
Your Honor, it's incumbent upon the Court to notify the defendant that if he is convicted as a subsequent offender of the crimes of violence, uh, armed robbery, robbery, or kidnapping, uh, that if it is a second offense, [he] faces a mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years. Or if it is a third offense for a crime of violence, which we do believe this defendant is -- has beenconvicted two times previously and served the requisite period of time in prison, qualifies as a, uh, third time offender, that the mandatory minimum is 25 years without the possibility of parole. I would put that on the record, your Honor.
Addressing Appellant, the court asked, "Did you hear that, Mr. Williams?" Appellant answered, "Uh, yes."
After reiterating the terms of the State's plea offer, the court struck defense counsel's appearance. The court then advised Appellant as follows:
Mr. Williams, you do have the right to be represented by a lawyer at every stage of these proceedings. A lawyer can render important assistance to you in determining whether there may be defenses to the charges or circumstances in mitigation of the charges. A lawyer can prepare for and represent you at trial. Even if you would intend to plead guilty, a lawyer may be of substantial assistance to you in obtaining [and] developing information which could affect the sentence or other disposition. And you may certainly hire an attorney of your choosing. You would have to do that promptly since this matter has been scheduled for trial on April the 16th. Since you have discharged the public defender from your representation in this matter, uh, the public defender, I do not believe, will appoint another attorney to represent you in this matter, having found there is no meritorious reasons for your discharge of [defense counsel].
Trial was set for April 16, 2015 before the Honorable Kenneth M. Long Jr. However, on that date, the trial court continued the case to allow Appellant to enter a written plea of not criminally responsible and obtain an evaluation from a mental health provider. The case was reset to June 29, 2015.
Appellant pled both not guilty and not criminally responsible. On June 29, 20151, he appeared, without counsel, for trial before the Circuit Court for Washington County,Judge Daniel P. Dwyer presiding. Outside the presence of the jury, the State moved to bifurcate the guilt and criminal responsibility phases of trial. Over Appellant's objection, the court granted the State's motion. Appellant elected to be tried by a jury, after which the case proceeded to trial.
At trial, the State elicited testimony corroborating the facts provided above. After the close of the State's case-in-chief, Appellant elected to testify in his own defense. In so doing, he averred that, on the night the crimes at issue were committed, he had witnessed an individual matching the perpetrator's description as the culprit fled the crime scene. According to Appellant's testimony, that individual discarded a bag containing cash, which Appellant then retrieved and secreted in his pants. Thereafter, Appellant testified, he was "tackled" by police officers and summarily arrested....
To continue reading
Request your trial