Williams v. State, 435 Md. 474

Melvin D. Williams was charged in Harford County with CDS offenses and resisting a lawful arrest; trial counsel John Janowich (Public Defender) entered appearance.
On Jan 27, 2010 Williams sent a handwritten, docketed letter to the circuit court requesting new representation and asking the court to remove Janowich; the letter was filed but the court never conducted any on-record inquiry about it.
Over the next 16 months Williams made several court appearances and proceeded to a two-day jury trial with Janowich representing him; the letter was not raised in open court.
During the arrest sequence (Sept. 15, 2008) officers chased Williams; a civilian bystander tackled Williams to assist the officers, and Williams struggled with that civilian; officers then tased and arrested Williams and cocaine was recovered.
Williams was convicted of resisting arrest and possession; he appealed arguing (1) the trial court violated Md. Rule 4-215(e) by failing to inquire about his written request to discharge counsel, and (2) the evidence was insufficient because the resisting-force was directed at a civilian, not an officer.
Maryland Court of Appeals held the written letter did trigger Rule 4-215(e) and the trial court’s failure to inquire was reversible error, but affirmed that resisting arrest can be based on force against a civilian who voluntarily aids officers in effecting an arrest.

Issue	Williams' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a written/docketed letter asking to discharge counsel triggers Md. Rule 4-215(e)	The letter was clear, present-tense, and unambiguous — sufficient without repeating in open court	Rule must be triggered in open court or at least repeated in open court; out-of-court writings alone are insufficient and can be waived by silence	Letter was sufficient to trigger Rule 4-215(e); court had mandatory duty to permit Williams to explain and failure to do so is reversible error
Whether a defendant may be convicted of resisting arrest when the force is directed at a civilian who voluntarily aided officers	Resisting arrest should require force against police officers only; statute structure and common law suggest subsection (b)(1) applies to officers	Statute language does not limit resisting arrest to officers; force against a civilian who is assisting a lawful arrest may satisfy the resistance element	§ 9-408(b)(1) (resist a lawful arrest) is not limited to force against officers; conviction may stand where civilian voluntarily aided officers and defendant used force to resist arrest

Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599 (court reviews interpretation of rules de novo and discusses Rule 4-215 standards)
Northam v. State, 421 Md. 195 (distinguishes when a written filing does not trigger Rule 4-215(e))
Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678 (adopts elements of common-law resisting arrest)
Leonard v. State, 302 Md. 111 (Rule 4-215(e) does not require talismanic phrasing)
Hardy v. State, 415 Md. 612 (dissatisfaction statements can trigger Rule 4-215(e))
Taylor v. State, 431 Md. 615 (court must provide forum to explain reasons once Rule 4-215(e) is triggered)
Nicolas v. State, 426 Md. 385 (discusses force element of resisting arrest in relation to assault for merger analysis)
Pinkney v. State, 427 Md. 77 (mandates strict compliance with Rule 4-215)