Simms v. State, 126 A.3d 26

Background

Joseph E. Simms was convicted of two first‑degree murders in 1998; items of clothing (including socks) seized at trial were introduced into evidence.
In 2008 Simms filed a pro se petition under the post‑conviction DNA testing statute (CP §8‑201) seeking STR testing of the socks to show they lacked his DNA.
On remand from this Court, pro bono Innocence Project attorneys pursued testing but discovered the correct socks had been destroyed on October 23, 2000; the State submitted an affidavit and documentation of destruction.
Simms later filed a habeas petition alleging due process violations and bad‑faith destruction; that petition was denied and an appeal dismissed.
In 2013 Simms filed a new pro se motion under CP §8‑201 challenging the destruction timing and seeking appointment of counsel; Innocence Project counsel moved to withdraw and the court granted withdrawal, denied appointment of new counsel, and denied further relief under §8‑201.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: withdrawal of counsel was proper under MD Rule 2‑132; appointment of new counsel was discretionary under MD Rule 4‑707(b) as construed in Fuster; and the denial of DNA relief was not clearly erroneous given uncontroverted evidence the socks were destroyed and no reasonable probability testing/search would yield exculpatory evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in allowing Innocence Project counsel to withdraw	Withdrawal was improper; counsel should remain to pursue §8‑201 motion	Counsel followed procedure and had previously informed Simms they would not pursue further DNA relief	No abuse of discretion; Rule 2‑132 governs and withdrawal was proper
Whether court erred in declining to appoint new counsel under Rule 4‑707(b)	Simms requested counsel and court should have appointed one because petition was not denied outright	Appointment is discretionary; Simms already had prior counsel and claims were speculative	No abuse of discretion; court properly declined to appoint new counsel per Fuster discretional standard
Whether court should have ordered further proceedings/search under CP §8‑201	The Bazzle affidavit was insufficient; hearing and cross‑examination needed to test destruction timing and bad faith	State produced affidavit and chain‑of‑custody/destruction records showing socks were destroyed in 2000; no genuine dispute and no reasonable probability further testing/search would produce exculpatory evidence	Not clearly erroneous to deny relief; adequate documentation and no reasonable probability testing/search would help
Whether destruction violated statute or required adverse inference	Destruction occurred after conviction but before §8‑201 preservation duties; statute should apply retroactively or bad faith inferred	Preservation obligations are not retroactive; no evidence of intentional and willful destruction that would trigger inference	Court noted statute is not retroactive to 2000 destruction; Simms failed to prove bad faith, so no adverse inference or relief

Key Cases Cited

Fuster v. State, 437 Md. 653, 89 A.3d 1114 (discretionary appointment of counsel under Rule 4‑707(b))
Simms v. State, 409 Md. 722, 976 A.2d 1012 (remanding for State response and potential hearing under §8‑201)
Thompson v. State, 395 Md. 240, 909 A.2d 1035 (context on DNA testing statute enactment and purpose)
Arey v. State, 400 Md. 491, 929 A.2d 501 (State must conduct reasonable search and document destruction when evidence missing)
Washington v. State, 424 Md. 632, 37 A.3d 932 (State must make prima facie showing that evidence no longer exists)
Blake v. State, 418 Md. 445, 15 A.3d 787 (standard of review and §8‑201 procedures)
Johnson v. State, 440 Md. 559, 103 A.3d 650 (clearly erroneous standard for §8‑201 factual findings)