Crippen v. State
52 A.3d 111
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Crippen was convicted by a two-day bench trial in the Worcester County circuit court for multiple offenses arising from the May 26, 2010 shooting at 503 Laurel Street, Pocomoke City, Maryland.
- Crippen filed a Motion for a New Trial under Md. Rule 4-331 on December 20, 2010; a written brief followed in March 2011 with several grounds, including newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Crippen was sentenced on April 8, 2011, and amended his motion for a new trial on June 6, 2011, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time.
- The circuit court denied the Amended Motion for a New Trial on September 20, 2011; Crippen did not file a timely notice of appeal from that denial.
- Crippen challenged the conviction on appeal, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel tied to admission and use of a hospital statement by a key witness, but the State moved to dismiss for lack of timely appeal and lack of preserved issues.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed Crippen’s appeal to the extent challenging the September 20, 2011 denial of the Amended Motion for a New Trial and affirmed the conviction on the merits, ruling that Crippen could pursue post-conviction relief for the ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from the Amended Motion for a New Trial | Crippen argues the appeal challenges the denial on the merits. | State asserts no timely notice of appeal from the September 20, 2011 denial. | Appeal dismissed for lack of timely notice of appeal. |
| Reviewability of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal | Crippen contends the motions-record permits direct review of counsel's effectiveness. | State argues post-conviction review is proper; record insufficient for direct review. | Direct review denied; conviction affirmed; post-conviction remains available for ICA claims. |
| Whether the alleged newly discovered evidence under Rule 4-331(c) supports a new trial | Crippen contends Wise affidavit constitutes newly discovered evidence undermining trial credibility. | State argues the evidence was not newly discovered and does not qualify under Rule 4-331(c). | No basis to grant a new trial; the motion denied on that ground. |
| Whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the Amended Motion for a New Trial | Crippen asserts the circuit court properly exercised authority under Rule 4-331; the appeal should proceed. | State asserts lack of timely appeal deprives appellate jurisdiction over that denial. | Appellate jurisdiction lacking; dismissal as to that challenge; conviction affirmed on the direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blucher v. Ekstrom, 309 Md. 458 (1987) (jurisdictional requirements for notices of appeal)
- Houghton v. County Comm’rs of Kent County, 305 Md. 407 (1986) (Rule 8-202 timing; final judgment requirement)
- Buck v. Cam's Broadloom Rugs, Inc., 328 Md. 51 (1992) (abuse of discretion standard; appeal timing)
- Jackson v. State, 164 Md. App. 679 (2005) (abuse of discretion vs. de novo review)
- In re Parris W., 363 Md. 717 (2001) (exception to post-conviction rule for ineffective assistance when record clear)
- Ruth v. State, 133 Md. App. 358 (2000) (conflict issues and direct review considerations)
- Duvall v. State, 399 Md. 210 (2007) (post-conviction preferred for evaluating ineffective assistance; need for factual record)
- Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650 (2000) (post-conviction as preferred forum for ICA claims)
- Perry v. State, 344 Md. 204 (1996) (proper channel for ineffective assistance claims)
- Johnson v. State, 292 Md. 405 (1982) (policy favoring post-conviction development of ICA records)