Rich v. State
148 A.3d 377
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Otis Rich entered guilty pleas in Baltimore City Circuit Court to: (1) possession with intent to distribute (1993); (2) possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute marijuana (2001); and (3) second-degree assault (2002). He did not seek leave to appeal those pleas.
- In 2009 Rich pled guilty in federal court to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and received an enhanced sentence as a Career Offender, which he contends was based on his prior Maryland convictions.
- In April 2009 Rich filed three coram nobis petitions in state court challenging the voluntariness of his 1993, 2001, and 2002 guilty pleas and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the circuit court denied all three petitions without an evidentiary hearing.
- Rich appealed; the Court of Special Appeals stayed the case pending the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Smith and later lifted the stay after Smith was decided.
- The appellate court held Rich did not waive coram nobis review (Smith and a 2012 statute prohibit construing failure to appeal as waiver), affirmed denial as to the 1993 and 2002 pleas, but vacated and remanded the 2001 conspiracy plea for further proceedings because the plea colloquy did not establish that Rich understood the essential nature of conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rich waived coram nobis relief by not appealing guilty pleas | Rich: failure to appeal should not bar coram nobis; he filed petitions while case pending | State: no appeal or post-conviction petition constitutes waiver | Held: No waiver — CP §8-401 and State v. Smith apply retroactively to pending cases, so failure to appeal does not bar coram nobis |
| Whether laches bars coram nobis petitions | Rich: timely sought relief upon learning collateral consequence; no prejudice shown | State: long delay prejudices prosecution and witnesses | Held: Laches not proven on this record; State failed to show prejudice from delay |
| Whether pleas were knowing and voluntary (1993, 2001, 2002) | Rich: pleas involuntary; counsel ineffective; insufficient plea colloquies | State: plea colloquies were adequate; factual proffers suffice | Held: 1993 plea — affirmed (no transcript; presumption of regularity); 2002 plea — affirmed (colloquy and facts adequate); 2001 conspiracy plea — vacated and remanded (record does not show Rich understood essential nature of conspiracy) |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel warrants coram nobis relief | Rich: counsel failed to ensure full plea colloquies and failed to appeal or move to modify sentence | State: no evidence counsel acted deficiently; no proof Rich requested appeals or motions | Held: Claims of ineffective assistance fail as to 1993 and 2002 (silent record); claim may proceed for 2001 conspiracy plea given deficient colloquy and need to determine collateral consequence impact |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 443 Md. 572 (2015) (§8-401 applies retroactively; failure to appeal does not automatically waive coram nobis)
- Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52 (2000) (explains coram nobis purpose and waiver principles prior to statutory change)
- Jones v. State, 445 Md. 324 (2015) (elements for coram nobis relief; laches and prejudice standards)
- State v. Daughtry, 419 Md. 35 (2011) (Rule 4-242 requirements and totality-of-circumstances test for plea voluntariness)
- Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) (due process requires defendant receive notice of true nature of charge for plea to be voluntary)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)