Hawes v. State
85 A.3d 291
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Hawes was convicted in 1994 of first-degree murder and related offenses in Baltimore City and received a life sentence plus ten years.
- He pursued multiple postconviction and collateral review avenues, including direct appeal, postconviction relief, petitions to reopen, habeas corpus, and a motion for new trial.
- In 2010 Hawes filed a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence under Crim. P. § 8-301 seeking a hearing on newly discovered evidence; the circuit court dismissed it without a hearing.
- Petition alleged three forms of newly discovered evidence: (i) trial counsel’s failure to object to an erroneous intent instruction, (ii) failure to request an alibi instruction, and (iii) a 1993 police report about Washington’s interview not previously disclosed.
- The circuit court held the petition did not state grounds for relief under § 8-301(a) and dismissed it; Hawes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 8-301(e)(1) requires a hearing on a writ petition denying relief. | Hawes should be entitled to a hearing because § 8-301(b) pleaded newly discovered evidence. | State contends UPPA finality/waiver bars relief and the pleading fails the criteria for a hearing. | Yes; petition satisfies pleading but fails substantive grounds; no hearing required. |
| Whether UPPA final adjudication waives or precludes a petition for writ of actual innocence. | UPPA does not bar actual innocence petitions because 8-301 is separate from postconviction relief. | UPPA finality and waiver provisions preclude claims that could have been raised in postconviction proceedings. | UPPA does not bar 8-301 petitions; 8-301 is independent of UPPA. |
| Whether Hawes’s petition satisfied the pleading requirements of § 8-301(b). | Petition describes newly discovered evidence and requests a hearing. | Some asserted items are not evidence or not newly discovered. | Petition satisfied § 8-301(b) but may fail § 8-301(a) on merits. |
| Whether the August 3, 1993 detectives’ report constitutes newly discovered evidence under Rule 4-331 and § 8-301(a). | Report was discoverable only via PIA and not available before trial; could not have been discovered in time for 4-331. | Report existed before trial and was discoverable; the timing did not satisfy 4-331 deadlines. | Report qualifies as evidence but does not satisfy the time-based ‘could not have been discovered in time’ requirement; not newly discovered under § 8-301(a). |
| Whether the trial counsel’s post hoc opinions about trial instructions can be evidence for 8-301(a). | Affidavits showing counsel’s realizations are newly discovered evidence. | Counsel’s later realizations are not evidence and not capable of being introduced at trial. | Alston’s affidavits are not evidence; not newly discovered evidence under § 8-301(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (Md. 2011) (newly discovered evidence pleading; hearing required when warranted by 8-301(a))
- Arrington v. State, 411 Md. 524 (Md. 2009) (UPPA finality applies to postconviction claims; DNA testing under 8-201 separable from UPPA)
- Roe v. Patuxent Inst., 240 Md. 717 (Md. 1965) (petition for postconviction relief not substitute for new trial)
- Argyou v. State, 349 Md. 587 (Md. 1998) (newly discovered evidence concept; precludes exculpatory evidence known before deadline)