Gutloff v. State, 207 Md. App. 176

Appellant Gutloff was convicted by jury in Montgomery County on drug paraphernalia, marijuana, second-degree assault, resisting arrest, and negligent driving; sentenced to multiple terms with some suspended.
He was not represented by counsel at any time in the proceedings.
Appellant timely appealed challenging the circuit court’s compliance with Rule 4-215 (waiver of counsel) before finding a waiver.
District Court on January 13, 2011 and circuit court proceedings featured pervasive jurisdictional arguments by Gutloff and a lack of proper Rule 4-215 advisements.
The Court of Appeals held Rule 4-215 is mandatory; failure to provide required advisements invalidates any waiver, and remands for proper proceedings.
Appellant’s conduct was not so disruptive as to excuse noncompliance with Rule 4-215.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the circuit court comply with Rule 4-215 before finding waiver of counsel?	Gutloff argues the court failed to inform on counsel importance, charges, penalties, and failed to conduct the waiver inquiry.	State contends conduct prevented full compliance with the Rule.	No; Rule 4-215 mandatory, failure requires reversal and remand.
May Leonard and similar authorities excuse noncompliance due to defendant’s conduct?	Leonard allows rare exceptions where conduct excuses advisements.	Disruptive conduct could excuse but only in exceptional circumstances.	Leonard does not justify here; advisements must be given and waiver cannot be valid without them.

Knox v. State, 404 Md. 76, 945 A.2d 638 (Md. 2008) (right to counsel guaranteed; Rule 4-215 strict compliance; failure reversible)
Broadwater v. State, 401 Md. 175, 931 A.2d 1098 (Md. 2007) (mandatory nature of Rule 4-215; counsel right protection)
Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 663 A.2d 593 (Md. 1995) (failure to comply with Rule 4-215 as reversible error)
Johnson v. State, 355 Md. 420, 735 A.2d 1003 (Md. 1999) (knowing waiver requirements under Rule 4-215)
Leonard v. State, 302 Md. 111, 486 A.2d 163 (Md. 1985) (disruption may excuse waiver inquiry in rare circumstances)
Goldberg (United States v.), 67 F.3d 1092 (3d Cir. 1995) (waiver by conduct vs. waiver; warnings needed)
McLeod v. United States, 53 F.3d 322 (11th Cir. 1995) (forfeiture as drastic sanction; court’s discretion in conduct)
Boykin v. State, 478 S.E.2d 689 (S.C. App. 1996) (three pathways to forego counsel; rare forfeiture)
Means, 454 Mass. 81, 907 N.E.2d 646 (Mass. 2009) (forfeiture/waiver doctrines; severity and opportunity to be heard)
Holmes v. Tennessee, 302 S.W.3d 831 (Tenn. 2010) (most egregious misconduct required for forfeiture)
James, 328 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2003) ( Moorish jurisdiction arguments rejected; state laws apply)