State v. Robb, slip.op

Background

A Montgomery County jury convicted Michael Robb, who represented himself at trial, of attempted murder, armed robbery, attempted robbery, and conspiracy, and he received a seventy-year sentence. 1
Robb did not perfect a direct appeal and later sought postconviction relief, which was denied before he moved to reopen based on trial due process errors and ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. 2
At a pretrial status hearing, the court told Robb he could participate at bench voir dire conferences but warned sheriffs would be nearby and asked him to decide whether to waive that presence. 3
When trial began, Robb expressly said, 'I don't need to be at the bench,' and the court recorded a waiver of his presence at bench voir dire conferences. 4
Robb did not object to the court's compound 'strong feelings' voir dire questions, and no objections were made after jury selection. 5
The postconviction court reopened the case and ordered a new trial, finding no knowing waiver, deficient postconviction counsel, structural error, and presumed prejudice. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Robb waive presence at bench voir dire conferences? 7	Robb said his waiver was invalid without a knowing, intelligent relinquishment.	Maryland argued he waived by expressly declining bench حضور, and no Zerbst waiver was required.	Robb waived the right by inaction and express assent; Zerbst did not apply. 8
Did Robb waive challenge to compound voir dire questions? 9	Robb claimed the questions were improper and not waived.	Maryland argued Robb forfeited the claim by failing to object.	The claim was waived, and no knowing-waiver standard applied. 10
Was postconviction counsel deficient for omitting waived claims? 11	Robb argued counsel should have raised the bench-presence and voir dire claims.	Maryland argued counsel was not ineffective for omitting meritless, waived claims.	No deficiency; counsel need not press claims with virtually no chance of success. 12
Was prejudice presumed from alleged structural error? 13	Robb argued the voir dire and presence errors were structural and presumptively prejudicial.	Maryland argued prejudice must be proven and these errors are not structural.	No presumption of prejudice; Robb failed to show fundamental unfairness. 14

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (knowing-and-voluntary waiver standard for fundamental rights 15)
Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132 (Md. 1978) (CP waiver statute generally tracks Zerbst-type rights; other waivers governed by ordinary case law 16)
State v. Brand, 265 Md. App. 112 (Md. App. 2025) (many claims are waived if not raised earlier; ineffective-assistance framework and waiver categories 17)
State v. Rose, 345 Md. 238 (Md. 1997) (constitutional jury-instruction claim waived absent contemporaneous objection 18)
Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122 (Md. 1997) (voir dire and jury-selection claims may be waived by failure to object 19)
Williams v. State, 292 Md. 201 (Md. 1981) (defendant's presence at bench conferences may be waived by counsel in many circumstances 20)
State v. Hart, 449 Md. 246 (Md. 2016) (summarizes Maryland's right-to-be-present doctrine and Rule 4-231 21)
Foster v. State, 247 Md. App. 642 (Md. App. 2020) (preservation of objections to voir dire questions requires a trial objection 22)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test requiring deficient performance and prejudice 23)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (U.S. 2017) (structural error usually does not create presumed prejudice in ineffective-assistance claims 24)
Ramirez v. State, 464 Md. 532 (Md. 2019) (prejudice generally must be proven even when underlying error is structural 25)
Newton v. State, 455 Md. 341 (Md. 2017) (presumed prejudice is rare and structural-error categories are narrow 26)