Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND NO. 2021 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2006

KAYODE ABRAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Woodward, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Woodward, J.

Filed: September 10, 2007

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND NO. 2021 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2006

KAYODE ABRAMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Woodward, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Woodward, J.

Filed:

This appeal arises out of an Alford plea1 tendered in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by appellant, Kayode Abrams, to three counts of uttering on June 16, 1994. The circuit court accepted appellant's plea and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment on each of the three counts, to run concurrently, and suspended the execution of the sentence in lieu of a period of two years' probation. On September 1, 2006, appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, alleging, inter alia, that

appellant's guilty plea was both unconstitutional and violative of Maryland Rule 4-242(c) because a factual basis for the plea had not been set forth on the record. After conducting a hearing on appellant's petition, the circuit court denied the same by order dated October 4, 2006.2 Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal on October 26, 2006. In this appeal, appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his coram nobis petition because the record of his Alford plea contained neither a factual basis in support of the plea nor an adequate explanation of the elements of the crime. In response, the State raises a more fundamental issue, which was not presented to the trial court: Whether appellant is entitled to coram nobis

See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970). An Alford plea is a "specialized type of guilty plea where the defendant, although pleading guilty, continues to deny his or her guilt, but enters the plea to avoid the threat of greater punishment." Ward v. State , 83 Md. App. 474, 478 (1990). In Ward , this Court held that an Alford plea was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea. Id. at 480. Accordingly, in this opinion we will use the terms " Alford plea" and "guilty plea" interchangeably. The court also denied appellant's petition on the record at the conclusion of the coram nobis hearing.
2

1

relief when a probation before judgment under Article 27, section 6413 was granted on all charges and appellant successfully

completed the probation thereunder. For the reasons set forth herein, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. BACKGROUND On March 29, 1994, an indictment was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, charging appellant with nine counts of uttering and one count of theft over $300. The statement of charges for these offenses, originally filed in the district court, was filed in the circuit court on April 6, 1994. On June 16, 1994, appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered an Alford plea to three counts of uttering. The remaining six counts of uttering and one count of theft over $300 were nol prossed by the State. The following relevant part of the plea colloquy then ensued between the court and appellant. THE COURT: [Defense counsel] tells me you want to plead guilty to three counts of uttering, which accuses you of offering a forged instrument to obtain some benefit you are not entitled to which carries a possible maximum of 10 years. It is a felony. Do you understand that? [APPELLANT]: Yes, ma'am.

Md. Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol.), Article 27

Download Abrams v. State.pdf

Maryland Law