Graves v. State
215 Md. App. 339
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- In 1998 Graves pleaded guilty to robbery with a deadly weapon and two counts of use of a handgun during a felony; court sentenced concurrent 20-year terms with all but 5 years suspended and five years probation.
- At plea hearing the prosecutor summarized facts for the Little Caesar’s robbery (Case No. 97-1468B) emphasizing McDowney’s display/threat with a gun; Graves agreed he heard the facts and said he was guilty, but neither the judge nor counsel stated the elements of the handgun-use charge on the record.
- In 2011 Graves petitioned for writ of error coram nobis seeking vacation of all three convictions, alleging his pleas were involuntary (no explanation of elements, Boykin rights not on the record, insufficient factual basis) and that state convictions would enhance pending federal exposure.
- The circuit court granted coram nobis relief for two convictions (vacated) but denied relief as to Case No. 97-1468B, finding a factual basis existed, the plea was voluntary, and Graves waived coram nobis by failing to seek direct appeal.
- On appeal the court addressed waiver (Holmes precedent and subsequent CP § 8-401), collateral-consequences proof, and whether the plea was knowing and voluntary under Maryland Rule 4‑242 and related case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Graves) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graves waived coram nobis by not seeking direct appeal | Failure to seek leave to appeal should not bar coram nobis; new CP § 8‑401 prevents construing lack of appeal as waiver | Holmes establishes a rebuttable presumption of waiver for failure to seek leave to appeal; statute is prospective only | Court held CP § 8‑401 is remedial/procedural and applies retroactively; Graves did not waive coram nobis by failing to appeal |
| Whether Graves proved significant collateral consequences | State convictions exposed him to enhanced federal penalties; this is a concrete collateral consequence | State argued the federal exposure was speculative at time of petition because federal trial had not occurred | State did not preserve the argument below; appellate court declined to address it (issue waived) |
| Whether plea hearing satisfied Rule 4‑242: judge/counsel put elements/nature of handgun-use charge on record | Plea was involuntary because neither judge, prosecutor, nor defense counsel explained or represented on the record that Graves understood the elements; factual proffer mainly described co-defendant’s acts | State argued the charge label and record show Graves understood the handgun-use offense; act of entering and fleeing sufficed as factual basis | Court held plea was not knowing/voluntary as to the handgun-use charge: no on-the-record explanation of elements and no counsel representation on record; plea vacated |
| Whether the State’s factual proffer alone established guilt for handgun-use count | Proffered facts (presence, flight with money, co‑defendant’s display) suffice to support the charge | State relied on those facts to demonstrate factual basis | Court concluded the record still lacked the necessary on-the-record advisement of the elements and counsel’s representation; deficiency required vacatur of the plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52 (coram nobis is extraordinary collateral remedy; grounds must be constitutional/jurisdictional/fundamental)
- Holmes v. State, 401 Md. 429 (failure to file application for leave to appeal creates rebuttable presumption of waiver of coram nobis)
- Daughtry v. State, 419 Md. 35 (plea colloquy deficient where record shows only generic discussion with counsel; judge must ensure on-the-record advisement)
- Priet v. State, 289 Md. 267 (defendant must have basic understanding of the nature of the offense; inquiry is case-by-case)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (court may rely on competent counsel’s on-the-record assurance that defendant was informed of elements)
- Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (guilty plea invalid if defendant lacks real notice of the true nature of the charge)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (real notice requires understanding law in relation to facts)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (origins of coram nobis as extraordinary remedy)
- Gregg v. State, 409 Md. 698 (procedural/remedial statutes may be applied retroactively)