Holloway v. State
157 A.3d 356
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- In 2000 Holloway pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute heroin and received concurrent 20-year sentences with all but five years suspended.
- In 2009 Holloway was federally convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm; his federal sentence relied on the 2000 state drug convictions.
- Holloway filed a coram nobis petition in state court (First Petition, 2009) arguing the plea colloquy failed to explain the nature of the charges; the circuit court denied relief as waived for failure to seek leave to appeal and on the merits.
- This Court (unreported opinion, affirmed by the Court of Appeals’ denial of certiorari) held statutory change CP § 8-401 meant failure to seek appeal did not waive coram nobis relief and, applying a Daughtry totality-of-circumstances test, rejected Holloway’s claim on the merits.
- Holloway filed a second coram nobis petition (Second Petition, 2014) adding that the plea court also failed to advise him of the presumption of innocence; the circuit court again denied relief citing waiver from failure to seek appeal.
- On appeal the State concedes the circuit court erred to the extent it relied on Holmes (pre-CP § 8-401) but argues the claim is barred by the law of the case doctrine; the Court of Special Appeals held (1) law of the case may be raised for the first time on appeal and (2) Holloway’s second petition is barred by law of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holloway waived coram nobis by failing to seek appeal | Holloway: statutory CP § 8-401 and Graves make failure to appeal not a waiver | State/Circuit Court: Holmes barred coram nobis for failure to seek appeal | Court: Circuit court erred; CP § 8-401 controls and prevents waiver by failure to appeal |
| Whether law of the case can be invoked for the first time on appeal | Holloway: State did not assert law-of-the-case below; raising it on appeal is improper | State: May assert law of the case on appeal to prevent relitigation | Court: Yes—appellate courts may invoke law of the case for first time on appeal in the interests of judicial economy and finality |
| Whether Holloway’s Second Petition is barred by law of the case | Holloway: Second Petition raises a new claim (failure to advise presumption of innocence) distinct from First Petition | State: Second Petition attempts to relitigate validity of plea and is barred under law of the case (covers decided and could-have-been-raised issues) | Court: Held barred—issue of plea validity was decided (or could have been raised) previously; no exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. State, 401 Md. 429 (2007) (held pre-CP § 8-401 that failure to seek leave to appeal could bar coram nobis relief)
- Daughtry v. State, 419 Md. 35 (2011) (announcing totality-of-the-circumstances test for plea colloquies)
- Graves v. State, 215 Md. App. 339 (2013) (held CP § 8-401 should be applied retroactively)
- Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170 (2004) (describing law of the case doctrine and its effect on lower courts and subsequent appeals)
- Anne Arundel Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Norville, 390 Md. 93 (2005) (discussing courts raising res judicata sua sponte and addressing finality/judicial economy)