Dykes v. State, 121 A.3d 113

Background

Dykes, an indigent defendant, was charged with burglary-related offenses after DNA/fingerprint evidence linked him to a break-in; he was assigned Office of the Public Defender (OPD) counsel but repeatedly expressed distrust and sought discharge of OPD counsel.
Over many pretrial hearings before multiple judges, competency was evaluated twice; the court ultimately found Dykes competent to stand trial.
On March 27, 2013 the circuit court found Dykes had a "meritorious reason" to discharge his OPD attorney and granted the motion under Maryland Rule 4-215(e).
After that finding, subsequent judges treated the discharge as a waiver and told Dykes the court lacked authority to appoint new counsel; Dykes repeatedly said he wanted counsel.
Trial proceeded May 1–3, 2013 with Dykes representing himself, he was convicted and sentenced, and appealed.
The Maryland Court of Appeals held the discharge-for-meritorious-reason did not waive the right to appointed counsel and remanded for appointment of counsel and retrial unless Dykes validly waived counsel after proper inquiry.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dykes)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a discharge of appointed counsel for a meritorious reason constitutes waiver of the right to appointed counsel	Discharge for meritorious reason does not waive his right to appointed counsel; court must obtain replacement counsel for indigent defendants	Court ruled properly: after discharge Dykes effectively waived counsel and court lacked authority to appoint a different OPD attorney	Court held: discharge for meritorious reason is not itself a waiver of appointed counsel; court must provide replacement counsel or consider using inherent authority if OPD will not provide one
Whether the trial court may appoint counsel when OPD will not or cannot provide substitute counsel after meritorious discharge	Trial court should appoint counsel (or refer to OPD) because indigent defendant remains entitled to appointed counsel	State argued trial court acted within discretion and that earlier discharge could be treated as waiver	Court held: if OPD unable/unwilling, trial court may exercise inherent authority to appoint counsel from outside OPD
Whether the court complied with Maryland Rule 4-215(e) and adequately advised Dykes	Dykes argued later courts mischaracterized the March 27 finding and failed to secure replacement counsel despite his repeated requests	State pointed to Rule 4-215 process followed and Dykes’ statements about representing himself	Court found the court followed many Rule 4-215 steps but erred by treating a meritorious discharge as waiver and failing to obtain replacement counsel
Remedy for proceeding to trial pro se after meritorious discharge without appointment of new counsel	Dykes sought reversal and retrial with counsel appointed	State defended conviction	Court reversed the conviction and remanded for appointment of counsel and new trial (unless Dykes validly waives after proper inquiry)

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266 (right to effective counsel and standards for discharge/waiver under Rule 4-215)
Fowlkes v. State, 311 Md. 586 (unmeritorious discharge may constitute waiver if knowing and voluntary)
Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260 (presumption against waiver of counsel)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self-representation and need for clear, unequivocal assertion)
In re Elrich S., 416 Md. 15 (trial court inherent authority to appoint counsel when necessary)
Office of Public Defender v. State, 413 Md. 411 (limits and interaction between OPD and court appointment authority)
Workman v. State, 413 Md. 475 (court’s role when OPD declines representation)
Gonzales v. State, 408 Md. 515 (equating "meritorious" with "good cause" under Rule 4-215)
Jones v. State, 403 Md. 267 (denial of last-minute requests to withdraw waiver on eve of trial)