Pinkney v. State
427 Md. 77
| Md. | 2012Background
- Pinkney was charged in Baltimore City Circuit Court with second degree assault, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct.
- Prior to trial, Pinkney moved to discharge his court-appointed counsel; the motion was denied but could be renewed at trial.
- At trial, Pinkney asserted dissatisfaction with his counsel; the court found his reasons non-meritorious and proceeded to trial with the Public Defender.
- Pinkney was convicted of second degree assault and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
- On appeal, Pinkney argued Rule 4-215(e) required informing him of the right to proceed pro se after denial of the discharge request.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding there is no such obligation when reasons are non-meritorious and no clear assertion of a wish to represent oneself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge was required to inform the defendant of the right to proceed pro se after denying an unmeritorious discharge of counsel | Pinkney argued Rule 4-215(e) obligates such advisement when discharge is denied. | State contends Rule 4-215(e) does not require pro se advisement in this scenario and confers this only if the defendant discharges counsel meritoriously or asserts self-representation. | No; advisement not required when reasons were unmeritorious and no clear request to self-represent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing waiver of counsel)
- Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260 (Md. 1987) (two-step inquiry for self-representation; clear, unequivocal assertion needed)
- Snead v. State, 286 Md. 122 (Md. 1979) (two-phase inquiry when self-representation is asserted)
- Colvin v. State, 299 Md. 88 (Md. 1984) (distinguishes when an assertion to defend pro se triggers inquiry)
- Fowlkes v. State, 311 Md. 586 (Md. 1988) (unmeritorious discharge requests may justify not discharging counsel)
- Gonzales v. State, 408 Md. 515 (Md. 2009) (outlines Rule 4-215(e) procedures for discharge of counsel)
- Brown v. State, 342 Md. 404 (Md. 1996) (explains the three-level inquiry under Rule 4-215 when discharge is sought)
- Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407 (Md. 1995) (mandatory nature of Rule 4-215 and its safeguards)
- Williams v. State, 321 Md. 266 (Md. 1990) (right to counsel and to defend pro se; Faretta applicability)