175 A.3d 924
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Travis Harding faced two counts of second-degree assault and, on the day of trial, entered an Alford plea to one count; the State nol prossed the other count and recommended a split sentence.
- The court conducted a colloquy, found a factual basis based on the prosecutor’s statement, and sentenced Harding to five years, all but time served suspended, plus probation and no-contact conditions.
- Within ten days of sentencing, Harding’s counsel filed a combined motion to withdraw the guilty plea and for a new trial, asserting post-plea doubts about Harding’s competence and noting Harding’s subsequent admission to Sheppard Pratt Hospital.
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing and stamped the filing “Considered and DENIED.”
- Harding filed an application for leave to appeal; this Court granted leave and transferred the case to the regular docket for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harding) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harding was properly advised of the elements of 2nd-degree assault before accepting plea | Court failed to confirm on record that Harding understood the elements and what State must prove | State initially argued issue not preserved in leave application | Court did not decide merits; allowed issue to be argued because grant-and-transfer operates like a notice of appeal (not limiting issues) |
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion to withdraw plea without a hearing under Rule 4-242(h) | Motion timely (within 10 days) and raised competence concerns; Rule 4-242(h) mandates a hearing on timely motions | State argued preservation/notice problems but conceded that if motion was sufficient a hearing was required and remand appropriate | Court held motion was sufficient and vacated denial; remanded for the mandatory hearing under Rule 4-242(h) |
| Whether Harding was competent to plead at the time of plea (competency inquiry) | Harding pointed to in-court statements and later hospitalization as evidence of potential incompetence | State framed competence argument as the primary preserved issue but did not oppose remand for hearing | Court remanded for hearing where competency can be addressed; did not resolve competency on the record |
| Whether appellant was limited to issues raised in application for leave to appeal | Harding argued Rule 8-204(g) treats grant as notice of appeal so issues are not limited | State argued applicant should be confined to issues specified in application | Court held that granting and transferring the application operates like a Rule 8-202 notice of appeal and does not limit issues to those in the application |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (defines Alford plea: guilty plea coupled with protestation of innocence)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005) (discusses requirement that plea be made with understanding of charge)
- State v. Thomas, 325 Md. 160 (1992) (Rule 8-204(g) treats grant of leave, with transfer, as a notice of appeal under Rule 8-202)
- Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 612 (2000) (predecessor Rule requiring mandatory hearing on post‑sentence motion to withdraw plea; denial of hearing is serious)
- Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (2011) (reaffirms importance of hearing rights in plea-withdrawal context)
- Grandison v. State, 425 Md. 34 (2012) (discretion in enforcing strict compliance with appellate rules)
- Edery v. Edery, 213 Md. App. 369 (2013) (notice of appeal does not need to specify orders appealed; language in notice is non-limiting)
- Walker v. State, 161 Md. App. 253 (2005) (discusses preservation but court may exercise discretion to consider unpreserved issues)