148 A.3d 341
Md.2016Background
- Trendon Washington was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit murder (life sentence); charges for murder and handgun offenses resulted in hung counts.
- Police recovered two .45 cal shell casings and a bloody broom and dustpan at the scene; the broom and dustpan tested positive for blood but were not DNA-tested at trial.
- Washington filed a pro se petition for postconviction DNA testing of the broom and dustpan under Maryland Code CP § 8-201 after the statute was amended in 2015 to allow persons convicted of crimes of violence (CR § 14-101) to petition.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition for lack of standing, reasoning conspiracy to commit murder is not a listed "crime of violence" in CR § 14-101 and thus not eligible under CP § 8-201(b).
- Washington appealed, raising statutory-interpretation, due process, and equal protection challenges; the Court of Appeals reviewed statutory construction de novo and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Washington's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder qualifies under CP § 8-201(b) as a "crime of violence" permitting postconviction DNA testing | CP § 8-201(b) should be read broadly (statutory purpose, preservation duties, remedial intent) to include conspiracy, especially for life-sentenced defendants | CP § 8-201(b) plainly limits petitions to convictions of crimes of violence as defined in CR § 14-101; conspiracy is not listed | Conspiracy to commit murder is not a CR § 14-101 crime of violence; Washington lacks standing under CP § 8-201(b) |
| Whether Maryland’s statute (denying Washington access) violates procedural due process under the U.S. Constitution or Article 24 of Maryland Declaration of Rights | Denial of postconviction DNA testing deprives Washington of a core liberty interest and a procedural right to pursue evidence that may show innocence | Maryland’s postconviction DNA procedures are robust and align with other states upheld under Osborne; no constitutional infirmity | Maryland’s statutory scheme is not constitutionally inadequate under Osborne; no due process violation |
| Whether CP § 8-201’s exclusion of conspiracy convictions violates Equal Protection (U.S. Const. and Article 24) | Individuals sentenced to life for conspiracy are similarly situated to those convicted of first-degree or attempted murder and thus entitled to equal access to DNA testing | Conspiracy differs in nature (no required physical presence/overt act), so classifications are rationally related to legitimate state interests (likelihood DNA will be probative, administrative burdens) | Rational-basis review applies; statute survives because distinction is rational and furthers legitimate administrative and evidentiary interests |
| Whether CP § 8-201(j) (preservation duty) or related provisions create a right to test evidence even without a conspiracy conviction | The State’s duty to preserve evidence (e.g., because charges included murder or co-defendant convictions) creates a testing right | CP § 8-201(j) preservation duty applies only where a qualifying conviction exists; being charged or co-defendant convictions do not confer standing | No preservation-triggered right arises absent a qualifying conviction; preservation duties do not expand CP § 8-201(b) eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Dist. Atty’s Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (Supreme Court standard for due process adequacy of state postconviction DNA procedures)
- Arrington v. State, 411 Md. 524 (2009) (Maryland precedent on review of postconviction DNA statutes and appeals)
- Gregg v. State, 409 Md. 698 (2009) (statute construed liberally but not beyond clear legislative intent)
- McKithen v. Brown, 626 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) (upholding New York postconviction testing statute under Osborne analysis)
- Morrison v. Peterson, 809 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding California’s reasonable-probability standard and chain-of-custody requirement)
- Cunningham v. District Attorney’s Office for Escambia County, 592 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding Alabama postconviction DNA procedures as constitutionally adequate)
- State v. Cheeks, 310 P.3d 346 (Kan. 2013) (Kansas decision distinguishing by sentence and finding equal protection violation under that state’s statute)