State v. Smith
117 A.3d 1093
Md.2015Background
- In 2003 Kerryann Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana; court accepted plea and sentenced her to suspended jail and probation. She did not move to withdraw the plea, apply for leave to appeal, or file post-conviction relief then.
- In January 2012 DHS detained Smith at the border and initiated removal proceedings based on the 2003 conviction; in February 2012 she filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis claiming her plea was not knowing and voluntary.
- While Smith’s coram nobis petition was pending (effective Oct. 1, 2012), the General Assembly enacted CP § 8-401: “The failure to seek an appeal in a criminal case may not be construed as a waiver of the right to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis.”
- The circuit court denied coram nobis relief (finding waiver and that Smith’s plea was knowing); the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the plea was involuntary and CP § 8-401 applied.
- The Court of Appeals (majority) held CP § 8-401 applies to cases pending on its effective date (procedural/remedial) so Smith’s failure to file for leave to appeal was not a waiver; a different majority concluded the plea was knowing and voluntary based on counsel’s coram nobis hearing testimony.
Issues
| Issue | State’s Argument | Smith’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CP § 8-401 applies to coram nobis petitions pending on Oct. 1, 2012 | Statute is prospective; not procedural/remedial; Holmes governs pending petitions | § 8-401 is procedural/remedial and thus applies to pending cases | Majority: § 8-401 is procedural and remedial and applies to petitions pending on effective date; Holmes displaced as to failure-to-appeal waiver |
| Whether Smith waived coram nobis relief by failing to file for leave to appeal, withdraw plea, or seek post-conviction relief | Smith waived coram nobis under Holmes and by forgoing other remedies | Failure to seek leave to appeal is not a waiver under CP § 8-401; failure to pursue prior remedies does not automatically bar coram nobis where fundamental rights are implicated and waiver not shown | Court: Under § 8-401 failure to seek appeal is not waiver; failure to pursue post-conviction or withdraw-plea motions does not necessarily bar coram nobis here (no record showing intelligent, knowing waiver) |
| Whether Smith’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary under Maryland Rule 4-242(c) | Plea was valid; later testimony from defense counsel at coram nobis hearing shows counsel had explained charge to Smith | Plea invalid: plea colloquy record does not show explanation of conspiracy elements; plea therefore involuntary | Different-majority outcome on merits: court concludes plea was knowing and voluntary, and attorney’s coram nobis testimony admissible to show defendant was informed prior to plea; Chief Judge dissented on vacatur, arguing record lacked on-the-record explanation |
| Admissibility/use of defense counsel testimony at coram nobis hearing to prove understanding of charge | Such off-the-record testimony may be considered to show defendant understood the charge | Rely only on plea-hearing record; off-record counsel statements insufficient under Rule 4-242(c) | Court: counsel’s testimony at coram nobis hearing is admissible and may be considered to determine whether plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered in coram nobis context |
Key Cases Cited
- Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52 (2000) (recognized expanded coram nobis scope for fundamental constitutional errors when no other remedy exists)
- Holmes v. State, 401 Md. 429 (2007) (held failure to seek leave to appeal, after being advised, gives rebuttable presumption of waiver of coram nobis)
- Daughtry v. State, 419 Md. 35 (2011) (Rule 4-242(c) requires an on-the-record basis to determine defendant understood the nature of the charge; courts should examine record before plea judge)
- Langston v. Riffe, 359 Md. 396 (2000) (distinguishes substantive vs. procedural/remedial statutes for retroactivity analysis)
- Pautsch v. Real Estate Comm’n, 423 Md. 229 (2011) (articulates principles governing prospective vs. retrospective application and exception for procedural/remedial statutes)
- Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132 (1978) (interprets post-conviction waiver standard—"intelligent and knowing"—and rebuttable presumption rules)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (constitutional requirement that record affirmatively show guilty plea is knowing and voluntary)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (federal Rule 11 purposes: ensure voluntariness and create complete record)
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (leading authority defining coram nobis scope as extraordinary remedy)