235 A.3d 1
Md.2020Background
- In March 2010 Shawn Franklin pleaded (Alford) to reckless endangerment and transporting a handgun; the court sentenced him to 14 days active jail and three years probation. At sentencing the judge said she might reconsider probation before judgment after successful completion of probation.
- Defense counsel timely filed a Rule 4-345(e) motion within 90 days asking the court to hold the motion under advisement and to reconsider PBJ after probation; the judge handwrote “no action” on the motion and proposed order about three weeks later.
- Franklin completed probation and complied with conditions, but neither he nor his original counsel renewed a request for a hearing before the five-year Rule 4-345(e) window expired.
- After losing employment in 2017 when convictions surfaced, Franklin (via Public Defender) sought a writ of error coram nobis, alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to notify the court or otherwise renew the hearing request during the five-year period.
- The coram nobis court and Court of Special Appeals denied relief; the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the “no action” notation deferred consideration (did not deny), rejecting a per se rule of deficiency for failing to renew, and finding Franklin failed to prove deficient performance.
Issues
| Issue | Franklin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of the judge’s handwritten “no action” on the Rule 4-345(e) filing | The notation amounted to a denial of the request for a hearing and thus the motion | The notation indicated the court took the motion under advisement (deferred) per counsel’s request | “No action” was not a denial; reasonable reading is that the court deferred consideration and kept the motion under advisement |
| Whether counsel’s failure to request or renew a hearing on a motion held under advisement is per se ineffective | Counsel’s omission is per se unreasonable and unconstitutional (should require relief) | No per se rule; need circumstances-specific Strickland inquiry; counsel must at least ensure client knows five-year consideration period | No per se rule; performance must be judged case-by-case; counsel must advise client of the five-year window but is not always obliged to renew the hearing request on own initiative |
| Whether Franklin proved counsel’s performance was deficient here | Prien failed to advise Franklin of the five-year limit and unreasonably took no steps to renew the hearing request after probation | Prien reasonably treated the motion as held in abeyance per client request, counsel’s appearance terminated by operation of law, and Franklin never contacted counsel during five years | Franklin failed to meet burden of deficient performance; coram nobis relief denied |
| Prejudice and appropriate remedy if deficiency found | Lost opportunity to have court exercise discretion and obtain PBJ (and expungement) — prejudice established | Even if deficient, the court might have denied relief; State also argued PBJ might have required its consent | Court (while unnecessary to decision) said: where deficiency proved, prejudice will generally be found and the postconviction/coram nobis court should permit the defendant to notify the sentencing court and allow the court a reasonable opportunity to hold a hearing; here no relief because no deficiency shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Flansburg v. State, 345 Md. 694 (1997) (attorney’s failure to file a requested Rule 4-345 motion is per se deficient)
- Schlick v. State, 465 Md. 566 (2019) (postconviction relief may allow filing of belated Rule 4-345 motion and restores five-year revisory window)
- Moultrie v. State, 240 Md. App. 408 (2019) (Md. Ct. Spec. App. holding suggesting counsel must renew hearing request for a young defendant; discussed and distinguished)
- Montgomery v. State, 405 Md. 67 (2008) (noting circuit court record did not reflect a ruling where the court wrote “No decision” and later took no action)
- Sanmartin Prado v. State, 448 Md. 664 (2016) (mixed question standard; review of ineffective-assistance claims)
- Matthews v. State, 161 Md. App. 248 (2005) (discussion of Flansburg’s implicit finding of prejudice when counsel fails to file requested motion)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (rejects per se rules in ineffective-assistance contexts; emphasizes circumstance-specific inquiry)