Wyche v. State

• Decision Date: 05 January 1983
• Docket Number: No. 89,89
• Citation: Wyche v. State, 454 A.2d 378, 53 Md.App. 403 (Md. App. 1983)
• Parties: Henry James WYCHE v. STATE of Maryland. Post Conviction
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 403

53 Md.App. 403

454 A.2d 378

Henry James WYCHE v.STATE of Maryland.

Post Conviction No. 89.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 5, 1983.

Henry James Wyche, pro se.

Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., with whom was William A. Swisher, State's Atty. for Baltimore City, for respondent.

Submitted before WEANT, BISHOP and GARRITY, JJ.

GARRITY, Judge.

On June 26, 1969, Henry James Wyche, the applicant, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Ross, J.) of rape, assault with intent to rape and assault.On December 3, 1969, the applicant was sentenced to a life term on the rape conviction, a consecutive term of twenty years on the assault with intent to rape conviction, and a five-year sentence for the assault conviction.The five-year sentence was set to run concurrently with the twenty-year sentence.The convictions were affirmed by this Court in an unreported per curiam opinion Wyche v. State, No. 578, September Term, 1969, filed November 30, 1970.A petition for writ of certiorari was denied on January 13, 1971, 260 Md. 723(1971).A further writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 12, 1971, 404 U.S. 835, 92 S.Ct. 119, 30 L.Ed.2d 66(1971).

On July 20, 1981, the applicant filed his third petition seeking post conviction relief.(Art. 27, Sec. 645A-645J).The petition was denied by a "Memorandum Opinion and Order" filed October 16, 1981.

In his petition, the applicant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to be present at his trial because he was not present when the trial judge, pursuant to a request by the jury after they had retired to consider the verdict, reinstructed the jury.¹The hearing judge, citing Art. 27 § 645A(c), ruled that because the applicant had failed to raise this allegation at his trial, at his direct appeal, or at either of his prior post conviction proceedings, he had waived his right to raise it.

The question presented to us in this application is whether the hearing judge was correct in ruling that the allegation had been waived because of the applicant's failure to have raised it in a prior proceeding.

I.Discussion of Law

Prior to December 18, 1978, it was generally accepted that the waiver rule in post conviction proceedings established by the Maryland Legislature in Art. 27 § 645A(c) provided that "the failure to raise a claim even of constitutional error is presumptively a waiver of that claim".Curtis v. State, 37 Md.App. 459, 468, 381 A.2d 1166(1977), rev'd284 Md. 132, 395 A.2d 464(1978).Accordingly, courts found waiver to have been effected whenever an allegation had been raised in a petition if the petitioner could have learned about the problem in time to have raised it in a prior direct appeal, post conviction case, or any other previous proceeding actually conducted at which the claim could have been presented.

In Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132, 395 A.2d 464(1978), the Court of Appeals modified this all inclusive waiver rule and held that the waiver provision of Art. 27, § 645A(c) does not apply to all allegations raised in post conviction actions, but only to "those circumstances where the waiver concept of Johnson v. Zerbst, [304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461(1937) ]andFay v. Noia, [372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837(1963) ] was applicable".Curtis, supra, 284 Md. at 132, 149, 381 A.2d 1166.The concept of waiver established in Johnson v. Zerbst has become known as the "intelligent and knowing" relinquishment of a right.Curtis created two new questions, viz: 1.What are the requirements of an "intelligent and knowing" waiver? and 2.When does the "intelligent and knowing" waiver concept apply?

Based upon a synthesis of the holdings in Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132, 395 A.2d 464(1978);Countess v. State, 286 Md. 444, 408 A.2d 1302(1979);andWilliams v. State, 292 Md. 201, 438 A.2d 1301(1981), the requirement of an "intelligent and knowing" waiver may be found to be satisfied when:

1.The record expressly reflects that the defendant had a basic understanding of the nature of the right which was relinquished or abandoned; and

2.The record expressly reflects acknowledgement that the relinquishment or abandonment of that right was made or agreed to by the defendant.

In State v. Magwood, 290 Md. 615, 624, 432 A.2d 446(1981), the Court held that the "intelligent and knowing" waiver concept was required only where the right being waived was a "fundamental" right.

Fundamental rights have been defined as being, almost without exception, basic rights of a constitutional origin, whether federal or state, that have been guaranteed to a criminal defendant in order to preserve a fair trial and the reliability of the truth-determining process.Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 236, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2052, 36 L.Ed.2d 854(1973);Curtis, supra, andWilliams, supra.

Some rights that have been deemed fundamental are: the right to counsel, the right to trial by jury, the right to be properly advised before the acceptance of a guilty plea, the right not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence, the right against double jeopardy, Curtis, supra, 284 Md. at 142-44, 381 A.2d 1166, the right to confrontation, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to counsel at a post indictment pre-trial line up.Schneckloth, supra, 412 U.S. at 237, 239, 93 S.Ct. at 2052, 2054.In Curtis, the Court of Appeals held that the right to effective assistance of counsel at a criminal trial is a fundamental right and that an allegation of error charging a violation of that right may not be waived unless it is found that the petitioner intelligently and knowingly effected such a waiver.In the event, however, that it is determined that a petitioner did intelligently and knowingly waive the right to contest a particular allegation of error, waiver will not be found if the petitioner can show "special circumstances" excusing the failure to raise the allegation.

If the right alleged to have been violated is a non-fundamental right, waiver will be found if it is determined that the possibility existed for the petitioner to have raised the allegation in a prior proceeding, but he did not do so.This principle was applied in Davis v. State, 285 Md. 19, 400 A.2d 406(1979).

In Davis, the trial court gave the jury an improper alibi instruction.The right to have the jury instructed on the law of alibi is a non-fundamental right.Davis failed to object to the trial court's improper instruction.After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Davis filed a post conviction petition.In the petition, he requested that he be granted a new trial because of the trial court's having improperly instructed the jury regarding the law of alibi.The Court of Appeals ruled that by failing to object to the jury alibi instruction at trial, Davis waived his right to pursue the error in a post conviction proceeding.

In summary, therefore, when the court finds that the possibility existed for a petitioner to have previously raised a particular allegation but he did not do so, the allegation will be deemed waived because of the failure to have previously raised it only if the right upon which the allegation is premised is a non-fundamental right.Conversely, if the right upon which the allegation is premised is a fundamental...