State v. Rich
164 A.3d 355
Md.2017Background
- Otis Rich filed coram nobis petitions in 2009 challenging that his 2001 guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute marijuana was not knowing and voluntary because he was not informed of the elements of conspiracy.
- The circuit coram nobis court denied relief without a hearing, relying on the plea transcript and the State’s argument that the record sufficed to show a voluntary plea.
- The State defended in the Court of Special Appeals that the plea record was sufficient and that Rich waived coram nobis relief by failing to seek leave to appeal (later foreclosed by State v. Smith).
- After this Court decided Smith (holding failure to appeal does not waive coram nobis), the Court of Special Appeals reviewed the 2001 plea transcript, concluded the plea colloquy was insufficient to show Rich understood the conspiracy charge, and remanded for determination of collateral consequences.
- The State moved for reconsideration—first time arguing the record was inadequate and a remand for an evidentiary hearing was required; the Court of Special Appeals denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the State had waived the belated remand argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Special Appeals abused its discretion by denying the State’s motion for reconsideration seeking remand for an evidentiary coram nobis hearing on the 2001 plea | The transcript alone was insufficient under Smith; the case should be remanded for counsel’s testimony and other evidence | The State repeatedly asserted the record was sufficient and never sought remand before the opinion; thus the State waived the argument | Denied — State waived the remand argument; Court of Special Appeals did not abuse its discretion |
| Whether coram nobis review of a guilty plea is limited to the plea record or may consider extrarecord evidence | Smith requires allowing counsel testimony at coram nobis hearings, so extrarecord evidence can be necessary | Smith permits but does not require counsel testimony; courts may decide on the record if parties so argue | Held that Smith allows extrarecord evidence but does not compel a remand when the State consistently asked the court to decide on the record |
| Proper standard of appellate review for coram nobis rulings | (State) Coram nobis is equitable — appellate review should be for abuse of discretion | (Rich) Apply mixed standard like postconviction: clear-error for facts, de novo for law | Court of Appeals: ultimate disposition reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings for clear error; legal conclusions de novo |
| Whether Rich’s 2001 plea was knowing and voluntary based on the plea transcript | The State argued the plea colloquy and factual statement supported voluntariness | Rich argued the colloquy did not explain conspiracy elements and thus the plea was involuntary | Court of Special Appeals (affirmed) found the record insufficient to show Rich understood conspiracy; plea not knowing and voluntary; coram nobis court abused discretion in denying relief without addressing collateral consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 443 Md. 572 (2015) (failure to appeal does not waive coram nobis; counsel testimony admissible at coram nobis hearing)
- Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52 (2000) (five requirements for coram nobis relief; coram nobis is extraordinary remedy)
- State v. Priet, 289 Md. 267 (1981) (requirements for ensuring defendant understands the nature of a charge at plea)
- State v. Daughtry, 419 Md. 35 (2011) (distinguishing direct-appeal review of plea colloquy from coram nobis inquiry)
- Byrum v. Horning, 360 Md. 23 (2000) (standard of review for denial of motion for reconsideration is abuse of discretion)
- Hobby v. State, 436 Md. 526 (2014) (issues not presented or argued in an appellant’s brief are waived)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (foundational coram nobis principles from the Supreme Court)