Wallace v. State, 158 A.3d 521

Victim Darrius Fetterhoff disappeared Aug. 20, 1997; found alive five days later and died of blunt force injuries. Wallace was later convicted of murder and sentenced to life.
Eyewitnesses described the man near the victim earlier that day as wearing a white t‑shirt (or shirtless with a bloody white shirt). Wallace was arrested the evening of Aug. 20 wearing a black t‑shirt and blue shorts; those items were inventoried and later transferred to the sheriff’s property room.
Forensic testing found blood on the shorts matching the victim; the black t‑shirt was noted in an affidavit as having hair fibers but was never DNA‑tested and was destroyed in 2003 after appeals concluded.
Wallace petitioned under Maryland’s Postconviction DNA Testing Statute (CP § 8‑201) seeking a hearing under § 8‑201(j)(3)(i) because the State destroyed the black t‑shirt; he also sought appointment of counsel for the proceedings.
The circuit court denied relief, concluding the black t‑shirt was not “scientific identification evidence” and declined to appoint counsel; Wallace appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) the black t‑shirt did not meet the statutory "may produce exculpatory" threshold because Wallace acquired it after the murder and eyewitnesses tied a white shirt to the crime; (2) appointment of counsel under § 8‑201 is discretionary per precedent and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State had a duty under CP § 8‑201 to preserve the black t‑shirt (i.e., whether it was "scientific identification evidence")	Wallace: affidavit noting hairs and the shirt’s connection to his person meant the State had reason to know it contained DNA material and thus had a preservation duty; destruction entitles him to a hearing and inference of favorable results.	State: shirt was unrelated to the murder (Wallace wore a different shirt at time of crime), and there was no chance testing would produce exculpatory/mitigating evidence.	Held: shirt not "scientific identification evidence"—no realistic possibility testing would produce exculpatory evidence because Wallace obtained the black shirt after the crime; no duty to preserve; hearing not required.
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying appointment of counsel for a § 8‑201 petition	Wallace: indigent petitioners need counsel for fairness given DNA complexity; Fuster should be overruled.	State: Fuster controls; appointment is discretionary, petitioner did not timely request counsel, and court’s denial was reasonable.	Held: Fuster is binding and not overruled; appointment is discretionary; circuit court did not abuse discretion in declining counsel here.

Blake v. State, 395 Md. 213 (examining whether § 8‑201 creates a statutory right to counsel)
Arey v. State, 400 Md. 491 (no right to appointed counsel under § 8‑201; court may appoint when necessary in interest of justice)
Simms v. State, 409 Md. 722 (reiterating Arey; court has inherent power to appoint counsel under § 8‑201)
Fuster v. State, 437 Md. 653 (appointment of counsel for § 8‑201 petitions is discretionary)
Simms v. State, 445 Md. 163 (Rule amendment adopting discretionary appointment practice affirmed)
Gregg v. State, 409 Md. 698 (discussion of § 8‑201 standards and thresholds)
Rowhouses, Inc. v. Smith, 446 Md. 611 (definition of "reasonable probability" as "a fair likelihood")
Phillips v. State, 451 Md. 180 (deference to trial court factfinding)
Bottini v. Dep't of Fin., 450 Md. 177 (standard for setting aside factual findings)