Fuster v. State, 437 Md. 653

Fuster was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against a minor and challenged the conviction via a petition under CP § 8-201 requesting DNA testing and related relief.
The State advised that W.K.’s jeans, underpants, and other items were in police custody and that socks and shoes were not indicated in the evidence file or chain of custody.
At hearings in Sept. 2012 and Mar. 2013, the State asserted socks and shoes were not collected; Fuster argued possible destruction or missing evidence and sought DNA testing and a potential new trial.
The circuit court discussed Rule 4-707(b) and noted indigent petitioners are not automatically entitled to counsel for CP § 8-201 proceedings; counsel may be appointed in the court’s discretion.
The circuit court found no reasonable probability that DNA testing would produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence and denied testing; it also denied a request for a new trial under CP § 8-201(c).
Fuster appealed; the Court of Special Appeals transferred the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 4-707(b) entitles indigents to counsel for CP § 8-201 petitions	Fuster argues indigent entitlement.	State argues no automatic right to counsel for CP § 8-201 petitions.	Rule 4-707(b) does not guarantee counsel for CP § 8-201 petitions.
Whether the circuit court abused discretion in not appointing counsel for CP § 8-201 petition	Fuster sought appointed counsel.	Fuster did not request counsel in the petition, so no abuse.	No abuse; discretion allowed when no request was made.
Whether the circuit court applied the correct standard under CP 8-201	Court allegedly misapplied the standard.	Court used the correct standards for testing and for a potential new trial.	Correct standards were applied: reasonable probability for testing; substantial possibility for new trial.
Whether Fuster preserved the issue of the State's search for socks and shoes	Issue preserved and reviewable.	Fuster failed to preserve by disputing the State’s proffer.	Issue not preserved for appellate review.

Simms v. State, 409 Md. 722 (Md. 2009) (premised discretionary appointment of counsel in CP § 8-201 on justice interests)
Arey v. State, 400 Md. 491 (Md. 2007) (appointment of counsel discretionary, not mandatory)
State v. Weems, 429 Md. 329 (Md. 2012) (interpretation of rules with statutory-like analysis)