*1 that, The record after instructing jurors open shows use, what, “you court that cannot ... if directly indirectly ... anything, you you saw heard once placed and/or it,” battery phone and activated the Circuit asked Court asked, jurors questions. questions four The first three everybody “Does understand The fourth [the instructions]?” asked, question anyone “Now is there who is unable comply with that instruction deliberation? Raise hand.” during your that, The record also shows when it returned its verdicts over resumed, four hours after jury deliberations acquitted Petitioner of robbery dangerous weapon, degree with a first handgun charges assault and the relating those offenses. Because trial requested Petitioner’s counsel never that the Circuit Court conduct an I juror, individual voir dire of each would hold that the Circuit Court’s failure to do so neither was discretion, erroneous nor an unfairly prejudicial abuse of judgment would therefore affirm the of the Court Special Appeals. DOUGLAS,
Ellis Richard Jr.
v. Maryland. STATE Lamont Curtis v. Maryland.
State of 146, 147, Sept. Term, Nos. 2010. Maryland. Appeals
Court of Oct. *6 (Karinna Hutchins, Public Defender Assigned
Rennee M. Defender, University Maryland Public Arroyo, Assigned M. Law, Baltimore, MD), brief, appellant. School Gansler, *7 Ince, Atty. F. Atty. (Douglas Ann Asst. Gen. Mary Baltimore, brief, MD), appellee. for Maryland, Gen. BATTAGLIA, BELL, C.J., HARRELL, Argued before BARBERA, GREENE, *MURPHY, ADKINS and JJ. BARBERA, J. our first present opportu-
These consolidated cases us with (2001, Vol., interpret Maryland Repl. Code nity (“C.P.”),1 Article 8-301 of the Criminal Procedure Supp.), providing for Petitions for Writs of Actual Innocence based on * J., retired, hearing Murphy, participated in the and conference of now Court; being this case while an active member of this after recalled Constitution, IV, 3A, participated pursuant to he also Article Section adoption opinion. in the decision and of this 1. 8-301 was amended in 2010. Because none of the amend- Section analysis, ments affect our we cite the current version of the statute. 8-310, innocence,” provides: Section “Petition for writ of actual (a) person charged by Grounds.—A indictment or criminal informa- a crime triable in circuit court and convicted of that crime
tion with time, may, any file a for writ of actual innocence in the county imposed circuit court for the in which the conviction was if person newly claims that there is discovered evidence that: (1) significant possibility a substantial or that the result creates different, judicially have been as that standard has been deter- mined; and (2) could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial Maryland under Rule 4-331. (b) Requirements. petition filed under this section shall: —A Ellis Richard Appellant evidence. Both newly discovered Anthony Lamont Curtis were Douglas, Appellant Jr. and went their sentences when C.P. serving respective pro se petitions Both then filed into effect on October Balti- for of actual innocence with the Circuit Court for writs City. petitions more The Circuit Court denied both without respective appeals noted their holding hearing. Appellants initiative, and, we Appeals to the on our Special Court in the Court of argument issued a writ of certiorari before Motion to Consoli- Special Appeals.2 granted Appellants’ present because the two identical separate appeals date which are: questions, for writ of actual inno- denying
I. Is an order automatically an order? hearing appealable cence without a erroneously deny [Douglas’s II. Did trial [the court] for writ of actual innocence without hear- petitions Curtis’s] in violation of 8-301 of the Criminal Procedure title ings Maryland Code? (1) writing; be in based; (2) grounds state in detail the on which the is evidence; (3) newly discovered describe the (4) hearing accompanied by request hearing contain be if sought; (5) distinguish peti- discovered evidence claimed in the any prior petitions. tion from claims made in *8 (2) (e) Hearing. (1) Except provided paragraph of this subsec- — tion, hearing petition a filed this the court shall hold on under (b) petition requirements section if the satisfies the of subsection of hearing requested. this section and a was (2) may petition hearing The court dismiss a without a if the court grounds may petition fails to assert on which relief be finds that the granted. section, (b ruling Ruling. (1) filed under this — verdict, resentence, trial, grant a new court set aside the sentence, appropriate. as the court considers correct record, (2) ruling The court shall state the reasons for its on the (g) petitioner proceeding proof. Burden in a under this section of —A proof. has the burden of Douglas actually application appeal, filed an for leave to but in June Douglas’s filing Special Appeals ordered that be the Court of appeal like a notice of from the Circuit Court's decision. treated follow, the denial of For the we hold that reasons immediately actual innocence is an for writ of order, of whether the trial court held a regardless appealable also hold that C.P. hearing denying petition. before We petitioner such that a imposes pleading, a burden hearing petition, provided to a on the merits of the entitled under the sufficiently grounds for relief stat pleads ute, and request hearing, complies includes a for a with 8-301(b). consequence As a filing requirements Douglas’s peti the order holdings, denying these we reverse denying petition. tion and affirm the order Curtis’s remand for further not inconsis Douglas’s proceedings case tent opinion. with this
I. Background Appellant Douglas A.
Douglas’s underlying attempted convictions—for murder assault, degree, handgun the second and related offenses— 26, 1990, out of altercation on January arose an between Douglas City police and several Baltimore officers outside a bar in Baltimore One officer saw City. police Douglas sorting cocaine, through appeared packages what to be of heroin or him, and asked to come approached Douglas speak with his partner. Douglas initially complied request, with the officer’s then turned and tried to run away. but flee, Douglas When turned to the officer noticed a .22 handgun Douglas’s caliber tucked into the small of back. The officer retrieved the A successfully weapon. struggle quickly Douglas ensued as other officers arrived on the scene. then pulled handgun .380 caliber from his front waistband and fired four bullet an officer in upper shots. One struck thigh three other bullets struck another officer: one hit knee, cord, just police below the one severed his radio and one lodged utility itself his belt.3 The officers recovered the gun ultimately Douglas. second restrained utility 3. The third recovered bullet was not from the officer's belt until incident, approximately two months after the when the officer noticed *9 trial, after he and Douglas appeared pro knowingly At se attorney public to an and fired his voluntarily right waived his officers involved the altercation police defender. Seven Joseph Reese Additionally, experts, two ballistics testified. regarding testified the ballistic evidence. Kopera, and Joseph had examined the bullet removed from Reese testified that he it being identified fired from leg positively one officer’s and Kopera from testi- handgun Douglas. the .380 caliber taken other the bullet recovered from the fied that he examined after incident and utility belt several months officer’s been fired from the same .380 having identified it as positively caliber gun. Douglas attempted convicted of five counts jury murder, assault, counts of five counts of degree
second five- violence, in the commission of crime using handgun carrying, transporting unlawfully wearing, two counts of in an Special Appeals, unreported per The Court of handgun. Douglas convictions. then Douglas’s curiam affirmed opinion, of which were denied. petitions, filed two both postconviction 2009, filed in the Circuit Court for Douglas pro se of actual inno- City present petition for writ Baltimore Douglas enacted 8-301. then-newly cence to pursuant several errors. He that the trial court had committed alleged regarding further there was new evidence alleged he Specifically, who testified at his trial. officer-witnesses asserted: Officer September or about Accuser-Witness:
[0]n shooting in another Sylvester police was involved Graham fellows, time, Sylvester’ police ... and ... this Officer case Sylvester’ story and go along did not with Officer officers from the Baltimore was forced retire Sylvester Officer [Also,] March about City Department. Police Bacon, Brian who was an accuser- Police Officer duty lodged prepared to after in his belt as he return the bullet injury. immediately supervisor and recovering He notified his from his analyst Joseph processed by bullet was collected and forensic Kopera. *10 Douglas witness at the Circuit Court For Baltimore against in City, the United States District Court For appeared an ... Maryland exposed perjurer District of was as testimony. ... changing [Finally,] his on or about March 2007, the Sunpaper’s Newpaper’ Reporter Jennifer McMe- exposed Joseph Kopera, namin wrote an News Article “that Unit, State Police as an Maryland Head Firearm ... perjurer; help Douglas Jury and he to denied a Fair Trial, testimony.... with his perjurer’ [Sic].
The Circuit Court denied Douglas’s petition without hear- ing by Order dated November 2009. The substance of the Order in full: reads
The court all ha[s] reviewed submissions and consid- ha[s] case, in ered all facts found that the ha[s] Petitioner evidence, fails to show that there is discovered which could not have been in time to move for a new trial, significant that creates substantial or possibility the results of his trial have been different.
Douglas immediately filed the Court of Special Appeals “Notice of for Leave Application Appeal” to the Circuit Court’s Order. June the Court of Special Appeals Douglas’s application ordered that be treated like a notice of initiative, from the circuit appeal court’s decision. On our we issued prior arguments a writ of certiorari in the Court of Special Appeals.
B. Appellant Curtis Curtis’s underlying attempted murder convictions— assault, degree, handgun first and related out offenses—arose of the shooting evening of James Sanders on the of November 22, 1994. night, “hacking”4 drug On that Sanders was for a dealer, Nike. Sanders dropped Nike off at the home of another individual, Dray. Sanders waited in car for While his Nike return, approached an individual car and Sanders’s shot times, Sanders three in the shoulder and head. Sanders told "Hacking'’ unlawfully working is the term used to describe the act of a as taxi driver. on Richwood Tony, a man named who lived officers that police Avenue, face out of a picked him. He also Curtis’s shot lineup.5 photographic address, an at Curtis’s last known
During “turn-up” Margaret Adkinson. grandmother, officer with Curtis’s spoke the name as well as report, her name on his He wrote Eri.” “Margaret witnesses, for the de- Wayne Miles testified
Among other Dray’s that he was eyewitness.6 fense an Miles testified immediately shots. He went outside house he heard two when *11 man, Curtis, into fire a third shot light-skinned saw acquainted that he was not with car. He testified Sanders’s Curtis. how he credibility by asking impeached Miles’s State day the responded case. Miles testify
came to the ... Aaron came “a friend of mine named shooting, after the shooting, anything [the and] did I know about asked me [and] then ex- thing.”7 I the whole Miles I told him seen [sic] and like he “came a month later that Aaron back plained name, stuff,” “I he guess name and because my my asked me case.” me out with the help wanted rebuttal, trial, the State asked day during the last of On “Airy.” The detective re- named detective about someone ... in a turn up up [Curtis’s “The name came sponded: victim’s identifica- does not indicate whether the 5. The record before us of Tony created conflict with the indictment the shooter as tion of dispute probability the lack of arises from Curtis. We assume Curtis, Anthony, may gone by have the nickname whose middle name is last known residence Tony. supported the fact that Curtis’s This is grandmother’s house on Richwood Avenue. was his Jones, Anthony produced witnesses at trial: two other defense 6. Curtis shooter, Curtis was the did not tell him that who testified that Sanders Wise, Curtis was home with her who testified that and Charlene night shooting. "Aaron,” below, (or identities) identity "Eri” and 7. As indicated simply other disputed. Our use of one name over the "Airy” is/are transcript. spelling of the name in the trial reflects the Airy. The name was writ- grandmother’s Margaret address]. turn report they up.” ten on the when tried to do the argued during closing The State that Miles’s friend Aaron really “Airy,” “Eri,” was a friend of Curtis’s named or drawing Eri, relationship Margaret an inferential with the name the officer had report “turn-up” written from the at Cur- (or tis’s grandmother’s argued “Airy” address. The State Eri) Aaron testify coerced Miles to on Curtis’s behalf. “1) deliberation, During jury questions: asked two Can we have clarification on who said came to his house to [Miles] 2) him shooting? talk to about isWho MARGARET ERI?” The court denied the request play defense’s back the videotape testimony jury Miles’s because the had to rely on memory. its own The court allowed party each one minute to argue jury theory identity to the as to the of “Margaret Eri.” Curtis,
The jury ultimately convicted and the Court Special Appeals, in an unreported per opinion, curiam affirmed the convictions. pro se Curtis filed a for writ of actual
innocence under argued 8-301. Curtis that the discovered evidence grandmother, was an affidavit of his *12 Adkinson, in Margaret which she swore that she had never “Eri,” “Airy,” mentioned the name of or police. to the Curtis asserted that this affidavit significant created a substantial or possibility that the outcome of his trial would have been different. Curtis also grandmother’s asserted that his testi- mony did not become relevant until the end of the trial. Additionally, argued he the evidence was unavailable to him within the ten-day period which he during could have filed a new trial grandmother because his ill had fallen from the affidavit, shock of give Curtis’s conviction and could not an “lost, imprisonment his him left confused and of bewilder[ed] options what he had.”
The Circuit Court denied Curtis’s for writ of actual innocence hearing, 9, without a April order dated
170 Douglas’s in reasoning given the identical provided The court case: consid- all and ha[s] reviewed submissions
The Court ha[s] case, that the in the found ha[s] all of the facts ered there is discovered to Petitioner fails show in to time could not have been evidence which significant or that creates a substantial for a new trial move have differ- of his trial been that the result possibility ent. of notice of the Court appeal filed a
Subsequently, Curtis initiative, a writ of certio- our we issued On Special Appeals. Special of to the Court prior arguments rari in case Curtis’s Appeals. Right Appeal?
II. to Judgments Final Right Appeal to Statutory A. the consoli- motion to dismiss both of The has filed a State of an order the denial ground on the appeals dated For the appealable. § is not to C.P. pursuant entered follow, rulings appealable. that such are we hold reasons that motion. deny the State’s therefore have a consti do not Maryland, criminal defendants State, 237, 241, v. 304 Md. Cubbage to right appeal. tutional (1985). Instead, right appellate “the to seek 632, 498 A.2d for, pre provide can statutory; Legislature review is State, 397 Md. clude, Fuller v. [it].” (2007). right regard § silent with 8-301 is see, State, arguments several shall mounts as we appeal. from right appeal that there is no of its view support Appellants under C.P. 8-301. brought a petition denial of address the had no need to Assembly counter that General (1974, Maryland Code in C.P. 8-301 because right appeal Proceed Vol.), the Courts & Judicial 12-301 of Repl. final (“C.J.”) appeal general right grants Article ings *13 first. Appellants’ argument shall address judgments. provides: Section 12-301
171
Right
appeal
judgments
Generally
from final
—
12-302[8]
in
Except
provided
subtitle,
§
of this
a party
may appeal
judgment
from a final
entered in a civil or
by
criminal case
a circuit
right
appeal
court. The
exists
from a
judgment
by
final
entered
in
court
the exercise of
limited,
original, special,
jurisdiction,
in
statutory
unless
particular
right
case the
appeal
expressly
denied
case,
law.
In a criminal
may
defendant
appeal even
though imposition or execution of sentence has been sus
pended.
case,
In a civil
a plaintiff
accepted
who has
may
remittitur
cross-appeal from the final judgment.
final judgment”
“[A]
is one that “either
and
determine[s]
rights
conclude^] the
of the parties involved or
den[ies]
party
‘prosecut[e]
the means to
or
his or her rights
]
defendt
”
and
subject
interests in the
matter of the
proceeding.’
re
W.,
675, 688,
(2005)
Billy
423,
386 Md.
874 A.2d
(quoting
Rohrbeck,
28, 41,
Rohrbeck v.
318 Md.
566 A.2d
(1989)) (some alterations in original).
Important
is whether
“any further order is
any
to be issued or whether
further
action is to be taken in the case.” Id. at
We conclude that the
denial of a
for writ of
actual innocence is a
judgment
final
under C.J.
12-301. The
ruling
petitioner’s
concludes a
rights as to all claims based on
newly
discovered evidence
alleged
petition.
Once
the court denies the petition, nothing remains
pending
A
case.
denial under C.P.
8-301 also denies a petitioner
“the
‘prosecut[e]
means to
his or
rights
defend[ ]
her
”
subject
id.,
interest
matter of the proceeding,’
Rohrbeck,
773)
A.2d at 431 (quoting
requirement the discovered evidence. allegedly the basis of same Moreover, of judgment requirement the final C.J. ... piecemeal § to and the “prevent appeals 12-301 aims judicial proceedings.” Stephens of v. interruption ongoing (2011) 495, 105, State, 502, 24 A.3d (quoting 420 Md. 109 State, 665, 660, v. 467 Health Ctr. 297 Md. Sigma Reprod. (1983)). 483, for 485 Because a denial of a writ A.2d matter the pending of actual innocence leaves no with trial court, a “final under judgment” our conclusion that it is C.J. § of comports purpose with the the statute. writ asserts a denial of a of
The State
judgment
innocence is
a final
because
criminal
“[i]n
actual
not
conviction, upon
...
the final
occurs after
the
judgment
cases
the
argument ignores
purpose
of sentence.” The
imposition
§
final
set forth C.J.
12-301.
judgment
the
rule
not “final” for
interlocutory,
An order
therefore
12-301,
proceedings
of C.J.
if “there are
purposes
pending
on
remain to
in which issues
the merits
the case
be
(“Ordi
666,
467
at 485-86
Sigma,
decided.”
297 Md.
A.2d
not
appeal
pretrial
... an
or trial order will
be
narily
from
issues on
proceedings
heard where there are
which
pending
to be
Such orders are
merits,of
case remain
decided.
final,
entry
interlocutory,
nonappealable
not
until
after
not
judgment.”).
rulings
a final
does
dictate that
Sigma
do not
within the final
arising
sentencing
matters
after
come
Indeed,
rule.
we have not hesitated to review
judgment
4-331(c). See, e.g.,
of motions
under Rule
State v.
denials
filed
Matthews,
(2010);
State,
286,
v.
415 Md.
denying appealable, C.P. legislative view, to history. consider its State’s history reflects the General did intend Assembly such subject appellate points orders to be review. The State (after particular legislature to action the took in Appel- petitions) lant’s filed their Among amend 8-301. proposed amendments was one would have included express conferring right to H.B. language appeal. Session, First Reading January appeal 2010. That *15 provision was stricken from the H.B. amendments. See Session, Bill, 2010 Third Reading File No. 2. The Amendment State this interprets reflecting action as Assem- General bly’s that there be no purpose right appeal from a denial of a petition pursuant filed to the statute. not We are so persuaded. explained why
We have of a petition pursu- denial filed ant § § to C.P. 8-301 is a final judgment. Given that C.J. 12- right 301 authorizes expressly appeal from a final judgment, language § to same explicit that effect in C.P. 8- redundant, 301 would be and unnecessary. thus reject, misplaced, We also the State’s on our reliance that, decision in for Fuller the proposition express absent an 8-301, appeal § provision C.P. there is none. Fuller is inapposite we because concluded ruling case that the sought appealed to be denial of a for commit- —the ment for substance abuse pursuant Maryland treatment to (1982, Vol., Code 2005 Repl. 2006 Supp.), § 8-507 (“H.G.”)9 Health-General Article not a final judgment, —is and, therefore, §C.J. 12-301 does not Md. apply.10 397 9. The Maryland current volume of the Health-General Article is Code (2000, Vol.). Repl. analy- No amendment since Fuller affects our sis here. 10. We in Fuller § reasoned that a motion under H.G. 8-507 was more corpus akin to modify a habeas action than motion to a sentence under Maryland appealed— possibly Rule 4-345—which we noted could be § length because under relief H.G. 8-507 "does not affect the of a sentence!)] statutory separate (cid:127). (cid:127) initiates a cause of action from the conviction, repeatedly any be filed 'at other time the defendant ” State, voluntarily agrees participate to in treatment.’ Fuller v. Md. a denial rejected argument 466. 918 A.2d at We judgment § was a final because a under H.G. 8-507
of motion filed “may repeatedly under that statute be brought a motion preclude not [the of a does single denial Id., Be- filing at 466. from another.” defendant] § whether 8-507 apply, § 12-301 does not H.G. cause C.J. to was essential to provides express right appeal itself an § Moreover, to 8- unlike H.G. analysis. petitions pursuant § under 8-301 has but one chance petitioner claim of discovered evidence.11 assert particular reasons, of a all we hold that a denial For these § final under 12- C.J. judgment writ of actual innocence is B. Postconviction Procedure Uniform Denial? Express
Act’s general right 12-301 grants C.J. conclusion our petitions does end of C.P. 8-301 appeal denials “ex- precludes appeal where C.J. inquiry because must consider the State’s by law.” now pressly denied Act the Uniform Postconviction Procedure *16 assertion that 7-301, 7-101 the (“UPPA”), through strips §§ at codified C.P. § from actions under C.P. 8-301. right appeal brought of 107(b)(1), UPPA, pro- of the the relevant section Section 7— vides, part: in pertinent of validity the person challenges
In a in which a case by of ... seek- imprisonment under a sentence confinement 372, 389, 453, (2007) 8-507). § (quoting We 463 H.G. 918 A.2d appeal a extensively history right the to denial of the of the discussed legislature recognized con- corpus petition that had habeas response prior review express appeal right in to our refusal to ferred an 389-93, at petitions. at 918 A.2d 463-66. of such Id. denial therefore, concluded, right express appeal an to in H.G. that lack of 393, § A.2d at 465-66. 8-507 was determinative. Id. 918 a to to convicted defendant is limited 11. We do not mean intimate 8-301; § we that a filing only petition, pursuant to C.P. do mean one statute, once, raising only under a is to convicted defendant limited particular discovered. item of evidence is claim that
175 of ing corpus the writ habeas the writ of coram nobis or a common law or other than invoking statutory remedy title, person Appeals this to of appeal not the Court of Special Appeals. or the Court added). 7-107(b)(l) § of the (emphasis argues The State under expressly right appeal UPPA denies the a denial § Appellants respond apply 8-301. that the UPPA does 8-301, to C.P. because of newly claims discovered evidence pursuant made to that statute are not under the cognizable 7-107(b) UPPA, only deny appeals and C.P. was intended could matters that have been heard under the UPPA. We Appellants conclude part argument. have the better purpose of the UPPA was to streamline “into remedies, one all simple beyond statute that are those review, incident usual procedures to the trial and which are ... presently] challenging validity available for of a Zimmerman, 11, sentence.” v. 24, State 261 Md. 273 A.2d 156, (1971) (internal omitted) 163 quotation marks (quoting 20, 29, (1959)). D’Onofrio, 643, State v. 221 Md. 155 A.2d remedies, The UPPA does not eliminate alternative such as nobis, corpus, habeas coram or other common law or statutory remedies, though it right pursu restricts the to appeal orders State, ant to those traditional Brady remedies. v. Md. 442, 447, (1960). 912, But where the UPPA does not provide remedy, the preclusive effects C.P. 7- 107(b)(1) Sutton, apply. do not See v. Gluckstern 319 Md. (1990) that, 574 A.2d (explaining situations “[i]n where the Post Conviction provide Procedure Act did not remedy, and thus was not a corpus, substitute for habeas enactment of the new statute no provided reason for restrict cases”). ing appeals in habeas corpus It settled that questions guilt or innocence See, cannot in petitions postconviction be raised relief. *17 e.g., 717, Thornton v. Md. 241 Penitentiary, 715, Md. 216 A.2d 894, (1966) curiam) 895 (per (concluding grounds that no for postconviction relief exist where petitioner claims actual inno cence). It just is as well settled that a postconvic for tion relief “is not a a substitute for motion for a new trial.”
176 Inst., 719, 162, v. 240 Md. Roe Patuxent curiam). (1965) an § a defendant (per provides 8-301 C.P. newly trial based on discovered to seek new opportunity innocence, her evident to his or actual as speaks evidence that the the itself. from title of statute Furthermore, reflects legislative history the of C.P. 8-301 right the statute extend the to seek legislative that purpose newly beyond evidence new the basis of discovered trial on 4- Rule Maryland defendant under that afforded a convicted 331(c). Policy accompanied Fiscal and Note that Senate The C.P. 8-301 included Bill which became afforded a defendant that the then-current law statement if newly “Rule ... discovered evidence relief under by diligence been due that could have exist[ed] days trial after the in time move for a new within year that one The Note stated defendants had verdict.” also newly based on which to file Rule 4-331 motions within mentioned, too, Virgi- The Note discovered evidence. Id. newly opportunity present law provided nia defendants which days sentencing, within after discovered evidence allow “expanded ... 2004 to Virginia legislature right Id. other than DNA tests.” felons to new evidence submit declared, 8-301, enacted,12 originally subsection as (a): time, file a for writ any may
A at person, convicted if claims that there is person innocence ... of actual (1) or that: creates substantial newly discovered evidence have differ- may that the result been significant possibility 8-301(a) provides: 2010. Section now 12. was amended in statute person charged or information with a crime A indictment criminal time, may, any crime triable court convicted of that in circuit court for the file a for writ of actual innocence in circuit county imposed person was if the claims in which conviction there discovered evidence that: (1) significant possibility that the result a substantial creates different, judicially has been deter- have been standard mined; and (2) to move a new trial not have been discovered in time could Maryland under Rule 4-331.
177 ent, determined; standard has been judicially as that and (2) not have been in time to for a could move new Maryland trial under Rule 4-331. § by
2009 Md. Laws ch. 744. C.P. its language 8-301 embod- ies the apparent Assembly intention General to enact in (similar enactment) Maryland Virginia to the a claim broader innocence, evidence, of actual based on newly discovered than 4-331(e).13 provided that under Rule Md. are persuaded remedy that the under afforded (albeit 8-301, restricted)
§C.P.
like the
remedy
similar
more
Inst.,
a
provided
trial,
motion
new
for
see Patuxent
240
163,
719,
Md. at
necessarily part
A.2d at
of “the usual
procedures of trial and review”
to a criminal defen
available
dant
that were not
within
scope
intended to fall
relief,
postconviction
Zimmerman,
see
C. sum, hold we denial of petition § under C.P. 8- 301 is a judgment final appealed pursuant be to C.J. Furthermore, 12-301. the UPPA appeal-stripping provision does apply to C.P. 8-301. Accordingly, the State’s Motion to dismiss is denied.
III. The Appellants’ Merits of Claims
A. The hearing requirement Both Appellants contend that the Circuit Court erred denying their C.P. petitions, affording without them a (c) was Subsection modified in none of but the amendments analysis are to our material here. that the statute estab- generally contend
hearing. Appellants that, met, automatically if trig- pleading requirement lishes The State provided requested. one was gers hearing, of the statute allows the language that the responds express innocence for writ of actual deny trial court to *19 procedural if the has met the hearing, petition a without even petition “if court finds the pleading requirements, the may granted.” on which relief be grounds fails to assert a determine whether C.P. 8-301 mandates To and, if petitions court dismiss the hearing may before the trial circumstances, of statuto so, we turn to our rules under what interpretation: ry always to primary goal our is statutory interpretation, accomplished, the to be legislative purpose, the ends
discern provision, a be it by particular the to be remedied or evils begin of the Rules. our statutory, part constitutional or normal, plain meaning first to the analysis by looking statute, the as a whole to reading the statute language of word, clause, phrase sentence or is rendered ensure that no If meaningless nugatory. the surplusage, superfluous, unambiguous, and we of the statute is clear need language analysis provisions look statute’s our beyond see fit to examine extrinsic sources Occasionally we ends. of a merely reading as a check of our legislative of intent instances, may find In such we plain language. statute’s scheme, statute, statutory a the overall useful the context of legislative history of relevant enactments. and archival (2011) State, 391, 400, Evans v. 23 A.3d Md. State, 384, 404-05, 978 A.2d Ray v. 747- 410 Md. (quoting (2009)). 8-301(e) provides: Section (2) subsection,
(1) in provided paragraph this Except a hearing petition a on filed under this the court shall hold petition requirements if the satisfies the subsec- section (b) a hearing requested. this section and was tion (2) hearing The court a if petition dismiss without grounds court finds that the which petition fails to assert on may be granted. relief 8-301(b), turn, provides:
Section (b) Requirements. filed under this section shall: —A
(1) in writing; be
(2) grounds detail which state is based;
(3) evidence; newly describe the (4) accompanied by request contain or be for hearing if hearing sought;
(5) distinguish discovered evidence claimed in any from claims made prior petitions. also “grounds”: statute defines (a) person charged Grounds. —A indictment or criminal information with a crime triable in circuit court and convict- *20 time, any petition ed of that crime at file a writ may, for actual innocence in the circuit for the in which county court the if imposed person conviction was the claims that there is newly discovered evidence that:
(1) creates a substantial or significant possibility that the different, may result have been been as that standard has determined; judicially and
(2) not in could have been discovered time to for a move new trial under Maryland Rule 4-331. 8-301(a).
§C.P. 301(e)(2) § grants
C.P. the court the authority to 8— that, petition although dismiss a with compliant procedural the (b), requirements of grounds upon subsection does not assert which relief granted. could be The language the statute is key. requires relief; It grounds that a “assert” for it require does petitioner not the to the satisfy proving burden of those in grounds papers Additionally, the submitted. the plain language a petitioner statute declares that has the “claims that there requisite if he is grounds newly discovered (1) evidence that: a significant creates substantial or possibili- (2) ...; different and could have been ty may that the result move a new trial under have discovered time to for not been 8-301(a) added). (emphasis Rule 4-331.” C.P. Maryland than that requires of the statute more Nothing language in the require- the hearing assertions before petitioner a those plead of con- prohibited by are our rules We triggered. ment a not into statute construction re- reading struction from State, v. Price Md. plain language, flected its (2003), we so here. and will do hold the only therefore statute establishes relief, them, proving not of pleading grounds a burden of may hearing that a dismiss a without a and trial court 8-301(e)(2), requested, pursuant only one C.P. when was the satisfy pleading requirement. a’ petitioner when fails deter that the trial court requirement mandates pleading relief, if allegations petitioner mine whether the could afford assuming the proven hearing, would be allegations those accept favorable to the light petitioner facts the most can from inferences that be drawn ing all reasonable is, determining whether to dismiss a That when petition. hearing pursu without a for writ of actual innocence 8-301(e)(2), petition comports with provided ant to C.P. (b), requirements § the trial procedural under if allegations, proven, consist court must consider whether have evidence that “could not been discov Maryland Rule 4- to move for a new trial under ered time that evidence “creates substantial 331” whether have [of result significant possibility trial] 8-301(a). §C.P. been different.” *21 require does that a trial court take This standard not asserts, For if a example, petition as truths. impossibilities discovered,” clearly during was evidence that known “newly discovered,” trial, and the “newly then the evidence cannot be hearing. the Simi may petition court dismiss without trial by committed the procedural if a asserts errors larly, If, court, “newly evidence.” howev that is not discovered trial er, evidence that “could the discovered alleges not have been time to move for a new trial under 4-331,” Maryland Rule and which “creates a substantial or significant possibility different,” that the may result have been then it would be error to dismiss the petition merely because itself did not convince trial court without a hearing.
In Jackson we recognized
persuasive
hearing.
value of a
Id.,
We also recognized have importance of holding a hear- ing even when one is neither mandated statute nor by
182
v.
Maryland
Rights.
Arey
of
Article 24 of the
Declaration
State,
(2007),
491,
had
us a
given purpose underlying the persons produce exculpato- for to vide means incarcerated wrongful relevant to a claim ry mitigating or evidence of notwithstanding and that stat- sentencing, [the conviction the if the court deter- hearings, issue of ute] silent genuine dispute mines there is a factual to whether that exists, ordinarily court should hold the evidence hearing. 507, reasoning at A.2d at The same where applies
Id.
929
510.
8-301(e)
hearing
on a
for actual
mandates
explained
in the scenarios
above.
innocence
B.
Petitions
the Cases at Bar
Sufficiency
of
their
by noting
Douglas
both
and Curtis filed
begin
We
construe
practice
se.
It has become our
to
petitions pro
inmates,
liberally
by pro
particularly
se
when
filings
Matthews,
298,
415 Md.
999
remedial.
at
statute involved is
at
of
liberal construction
(giving
A.2d
1057
“benefit
salutary
purposes
[C.P.
petition, particularly
light
lack,
far,
procedure
rules of
... and
so
8-301]
State,
722,
Md.
Simms v.
409
guide
process.”14 (quoting
(2009)) (internal
1012,
731-32,
quotation mark
1018
976
Simms,
(recogniz-
omitted));
Douglas hearing asserts that he was entitled to a the his he petition before court denied because satisfied all of 301(b). procedural State, § requirements the of C.P. The 8— though, Douglas’s petition comport contends that does not with statute’s procedural requirements, including that he asserts, not request hearing. did a the State Specifically, alia, inter that the claims are procedural, evidentiary; the does petition not indicate that the was newly evidence discov earlier; ered and have could not been discovered and the petition does not assert the materiality of evidence. We disagree. Douglas’s Construing petition liberally, we conclude petition that satisfies the pleading requirements. statute’s The first is requirement easily satisfied because Douglas his petition writing. submitted petition The also satisfies the second requirement, Douglas “state in detail the grounds 8-301(b)(2). on which is based.” C.P. includes several allegations detailed of error committed by judge the trial to addition several items of evidence that were years Douglas’s after trial and sentencing. Douglas also includes a blanket assertion that
That Statement Of Facts with Support Exhibits in of State- ment Of great The Case importance, is which will show “that Douglas was an continual to be an Victim of Miscar- riage Justice, Officers, Of by caused these Police Assistant Attorney State’s Schenker and Judge Johnson actions lack of and perjury’ actions testimonies and/or witnesses Douglas is actual innocence. [Sic.]
We also conclude that Douglas’s petition satisfied the procedural third requirement, Douglas “describe the new 301(b)(3). ly discovered evidence.” C.P. As mentioned 8— above, Douglas made several allegations. Among them he that, alleged on March an was published article “exposed Joseph ... as an Kopera perjurer.’ [Sic.]” Officer who had testified for
Kopera expert was one of the witnesses allegation, This viewed during Douglas’s the State trial. to be proven could be light Douglas, most favorable newly discovered evidence. under
Douglas requirement also satisfied the fourth 301(b)(4), a requires petition request that the which 8— hearing Although Douglas expressly if one did not sought. hearing,” peti “I are that the request persuaded state we tion, construed, for liberally Douglas’s reflects indicated desire complete language recited the hearing.15 His statute, include provision that the petition which included he hearing. Additionally, proposed for a filed request produce him for a Corpus” of Habeas the warden “Writ hearing. *24 301(b)(5), § that he
Douglas also has satisfied C.P. 8— evidence in the “distinguish newly the claimed in have any prior petitions.” from claims made We petition not on may multiple petitions a file based petitioner said that a from claim, prevent petitioner that not the same but does new grounds of different filing subsequent petitions asserting possibility multiple peti ly filing discovered evidence. grounds gives require context to the asserting tions different in instant petitioner distinguish that a the evidence the ment that prior Douglas from asserts petition petitions. claims refer every prior does not to phrase “prior petitions” the We, not too, that the does filing.16 persuaded language are inappropri argues liberal in this 15. The State that construction case is Court, hearing procedural like requesting a and this ate because courts, requires pro petitioners follow the same rules federal that se State, However, lawyers. v. 409 procedures as as we noted Simms (2009), that n. 9 notion ‘‘[t]he Md. n. unrepresented pleading inmate’s should be contents of an criminal the unrepre proposition liberally with the that construed does conflict procedure.” litigants expected to rules of There are follow the sented fore, against Douglas did not we will the fact that he not construe words, say hearing.” explicitly want the "I reopen Douglas postconviction petitions and a motion to filed two which, postconviction proceeding, petitions, was also like his closed under Douglas’s petition first As this was broadly. extend so conclude, distinguish. to 8-301, no claims § he has requirements all of the therefore, has satisfied Douglas that to C.P. 8- required pursuant (b)(5), hearing that a was such Douglas’s petition. 301(e)(1) court denied the trial before court, whether us to consider It remains hearing without nonetheless, could dismiss which relief grounds to assert Douglas “fail[ed] because 8-301(e)(2). We dis to C.P. pursuant granted,” be 8-301(e)(2) the trial court authorizes that C.P. cussed above innocence without for writ of actual dismiss a to if court concludes though requested, one was hearing even a petitioner if not entitle proven, could allegations, that the summarily denying erred regard, In this the court relief. petition. him to that, could entitle proven, if Douglas alleged grounds newly discovered there was Douglas relief. asserted Douglas’s who had testified Kopera, evidence that Officer an trial, Douglas credentials. submitted had falsified his his explaining article newspaper his exhibit with 9, 2007, Dated March discovered evidence. allegation Mary- head of the Kopera, reported “Joseph the article unit, on witness Police firearms claimed stands land State earned____ regarding Questions he never degrees have credentials examiner’s firearms and toolmarks longtime public state defenders ago by several weeks were raised *25 explained The article Project.” the Innocence working with ... Project ... Innocence attorney chief with the that “the while review- Kopera’s qualifications concerned about became the cre- noting regarding inconsistencies ing transcripts” that there were he he had earned. Given dentials testified had Kopera and that helped he convict” people “hundreds Department’s Baltimore Police years for “21 the worked join in 1991 to the away he was lured laboratory crime before denial, Douglas sought appeal. Upon leave to The Court each denied. Special Appeals request. each denied state inferences in police,” viewing light the most favorable to it could Douglas, be that the evidence could not have been discovered within time to move for a new trial under Rule 4-
Further, Douglas’s petition asserted that Kopera “help to Trial, Douglas Jury denied a Fair with his perjurer’ testimony Jury Trial. Douglas’ allegations These assert a [Sic.]” basis newly that the discovered evidence “creates a substantial or significant possibility Douglas’s that the result [of trial] 8-301(a)(l). have been different.” C.P. short, Douglas’s petition satisfied the procedural require- 301(a)(1).
ments of C.P. He is entitled to hearing the 8— that, petition requested. he emphasize although We Douglas has the pleading requirement satisfied to assert relief, it grounds automatically does not follow that can he prove his claim.
2. Curtis’s Petition now turn to the merits of Appellant Curtis’s appeal. Douglas’s petition, Unlike Curtis’s for writ of only actual innocence contains one claim of newly discovered evidence: an grandmother, affidavit from his indicating she is in court that willing testify she never mentioned the “Eri,” “Airy,” police. name or to the The State contends that Curtis’s fails he because did not assert affidavit could not have been obtained within year one after and, moreover, the mandate from the of Special Appeals Court newly the affidavit is not discovered evidence because Curtis indicates his that he was aware of the information that, after his conviction. The further if State contends even evidence, affidavit was the grandmoth testimony er’s would unlikely be to create a or significant possibility substantial that Curtis would guilty be found not because affidavit does not undermine the unequiv victim’s ocal testimony Curtis shot him. Curtis counters that his grandmother’s testimony would create a signifi substantial or because, cant that a possibility jury guilty would find him not as evidenced jury’s identity “Airy,” interest *26 Curtis deliberations, theory that during “Eri” their conviction. into Curtis’s heavily factored witnesses coerced properly the Circuit Court the State that agree with We grand- of his the evidence petition because denied Curtis’s evidence.” We “newly not discovered affidavit is mother’s has satisfied consider whether Curtis need not therefore on the hearing him to a entitle might requirements other that, State, “[ejxculpato- we explained In v. Argyrou petition. the time for expiration of prior ... to the evidence known ry unavailable, fact, trial, though new motion for a filing a 587, 600 n. 349 Md. discovered evidence.” newly not added). (1998) Consequently, (emphasis 1200 n. 9 his claim liberally, pro petition se construing Curtis’s even to obtain that he wanted petition indicated his Curtis fails. that she never stating grandmother from his an affidavit “Eri,” but could police, to the “Airy,” or the name mentioned incarcer- and his own health grandmother’s of his not because not unavailable does that is known but As evidence ation. evidence,” claim does discovered Curtis’s “newly constitute § 8- hearing a under C.P. to obtain requirements meet the IV. under petitions filed hold that denials summary, we judgments. final subject appeal
§C.P. 8-301 are 8-301(e)(2) a burden of establishes hold that C.P. also satisfied, and if the If that burden is for a pleading petitioner. requirements for statutory satisfies the otherwise petition without court not dismiss then the hearing, the court The statute allows hearing. holding first hearing affording petitioner without dismiss a favorable to when, light the facts most assuming can inferences that be all reasonable accepting petitioner grounds to assert fails petition, from the drawn there is granted, can i.e. relief be upon which or substantial significant that creates a evidence that the different and the trial results would be possibility *27 evidence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 4-331. bar,
Applying holdings these to the cases at we conclude that Douglas hearing is entitled to a on his petition for writ of actual innocence. further We conclude that the Circuit Court’s denial of Curtis’s must stand. We note that 8-301, an amendment providing to for an opportunity for the State to respond days within 90 of the receipt petitioner’s petition, written notice of the was enacted after Therefore, remand, Douglas’s petition was denied. on State shall have an opportunity to submit a written response to Doúglas’s petition. We make no regarding conclusions underlying Douglas’s merits of recognize and we requests decisions on the merits of for new trials based on evidence, newly pursuant discovered whether filed to 4- Rule 8-301, 331 or the C.P. are committed to the hearing court’s sound discretion.
ORDER THE OF CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY DENYING APPELLANT DOUGLAS’S PETITION VACATED; FOR WRIT OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE CASE REMANDED THAT TO COURT FOR FURTHER PRO- OPINION; CEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS BE PAID COSTS TO BY THE AND MAYOR CITY COUN- CIL OF BALTIMORE.
ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY APPELLANT DENYING CURTIS’S PETITION AFFIRMED; FOR WRIT OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT CURTIS.
HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, ADKINS, JJ., dissent. HARRELL, J., dissenting, which BATTAGLIA and ADKINS, JJ., join.
I dissent. The State’s motion to dismiss these
appeals,
law,
by
not allowed
granted.
should be
concedes,
170-71,
The Majority opinion
at op.
Judge and Judge BATTAGLIA ADKINS authorize me to they join state that expressed views in this dissent.