Alexis v. State, 437 Md. 457

Alexis was convicted after a sixteen‑day trial (Oct. 2010) in Prince George’s County of second‑degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, handgun use, conspiracy, and theft; in a separate case he was convicted of two solicitation counts related to obstructing justice.
The trial court disqualified defense counsel due to a conflict from counsel’s prior representation of a state witness who did not waive the conflict, and the court struck counsel’s appearance.
The court rejected a proposed “Chinese wall” remedy and found the conflict was significant enough to require disqualification, applying an abuse‑of‑discretion standard of review.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and the Maryland Court granted certiorari to address (i) the disqualification due to conflict and (ii) whether the two solicitation convictions could be punished separately.
The Court of Appeals analyzed the proper standard of review for conflicts of interest and relied on Goldsberry and Wheat to measure trial court discretion in weighing the defendant’s right to counsel of choice against ethical considerations.
The Court ultimately held that the trial court’s disqualification was proper and that the sentences for the two solicitation convictions could not merge, under the plain language and statutory framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel disqualification for conflict of interest	Alexis argues the court erred in disqualifying Tun; waiver should suffice	State contends conflict warranted removal to preserve fairness and avoid appearance of impropriety	Disqualification affirmed; court acted within discretion
Merger of the two solicitation sentences	Alexis contends merger should occur under rule of lenity or fundamental fairness	State asserts anti‑merger language precludes merging with any other offense	Separate sentences upheld; merger rejected under lenity and fundamental fairness analyses
Scope of review for conflicts of interest determinations	Alexis maintains standard should be strict reversal on errors	State emphasizes abuse of discretion with deference to trial court findings	Abuse of discretion standard applied; deference warranted

Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (presumption of counsel of choice; deference to trial court in conflict decisions)
Goldsberry v. State, 419 Md. 100 (2011) (balancing test for conflicts; requires hearing and fact‑based findings)
Gatewood v. State, 388 Md. 528 (2005) (trial court’s discretion in disqualification of counsel for conflicts)
North v. North, 102 Md. App. 1 (1994) (definition and limits of abuse of discretion)
Monoker v. State, 321 Md. 214 (1990) (fundamental fairness; potential merger despite no lenity option)