Preview:

Lorinda Ann Broadwater v. State of Maryland, No. 123, Sept. Term 2006. CRIMINAL LAW - WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL - MARYLAND RULE 4-215(a) MAY BE SATISFIED WHERE A DEFENDANT, WHO PRAYS A JURY TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THUS TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, RECEIVES ALL APPLICABLE ADVISEMENTS AN D INQUIRIES, ALBEIT IN A PIECEMEAL AND CUMULATIVE FASHION ACROSS MULTIPLE APPEARANCES IN THE DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURT. CRIMINAL LAW - WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL - ABUSE OF DISCRETION - TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT WAIVED BY INACTION HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHERE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT DEFENDANT APPEARED WITHOUT COUNSEL NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE THE COURT, DEFENDANT DID NOT EVINCE ANY CONFUSION REGARDING HER RIGHTS AS THE RESULT OF THE METHOD OF RECEIVING THE ADVISEMENTS UND ER RU LE 4-215(a), THE TRIAL JUDGE INQUIRED INTO THE DEFENDANT'S REASON FOR APPEARING WITHOUT COUN SEL, AN D THE COUR T DET ERMIN ED TH AT TH E DEFE NDA NT'S EXCUSE WAS WITHOUT MERIT.

Circuit Co urt for Frede rick Coun ty Case # 10-K-04-035747

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 123 September Term, 2006 _____________________________________ LORINDA ANN BROADWA TER v. STATE OF MARYLAND _____________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker *Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene Wilne r, Alan M . (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Harrell, J. Bell, C.J., Ba ttaglia, and G reene, JJ., Diss ent.

Filed: September 13, 2007 *Cathell, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

We issued a writ of certiorari in this case to consider two questions: (1) whether the Circuit Court for Frederick County was correct in finding that, as a matter of law, a defendant in a criminal ca se may be he ld to have waived validly by inaction, pur suant to M aryland Rule 4-215(a) and (d), his or her right to be represented by counsel where the required preliminary litany of advisements under (a) was provided to the defendant by various judges in a piecemeal and cumulative fashion over the course of multiple appearances before the District Court and Circuit Court because the case w as initiated in the District Court pursuant to that court's exclusive o riginal jurisdiction and the de fendant re moved th e case to the Circu it Court by praying a jury trial; and (2) whether the Circuit Court abused its discretion by finding that Lorinda Ann Broadwater, defendant below and Petitioner here, waived her right to counsel, despite her proffered excuses for failing to engage counsel? The Court of Special Appea ls found no reversible erro r with the piecemeal approach to rendition of the litany of Rule 4-215(a) advisements and concluded that the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion in finding tha t Broadw ater waive d her right to c ounsel by inac tion. For the re asons set fo rth below, we affirm. I. A. Legal Context The Sixth Am endmen t to the Unite d States C onstitution pro vides that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation . . . and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." U.S.

C ONST. amend. VI. Throug h the Fou rteenth Amen dment, 1 the duty to provide all criminal defenda nts with counsel applies to individual states because such provision is "fundamental and essentia l to a fair t rial." Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 342, 83 S. Ct. 792, 795, 9 L.Ed.2 d 799 ( 1963) . Similar ly, Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights states "that in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the Indictment, or charge, in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence; [and] to be allowed counsel." M D. D ECL. OF R IGHTS, art. 21. These constitutional provisions "guarantee a right to counsel, including appointed counsel for an indigent, in a criminal case involving incarceration." Parren v . State , 309 Md. 260, 262, 523 A.2d 597, 598 (1987) (quoting Rutherford v. Rutherford, 296 Md. 347, 357, 464 A.2d 228, 234 (1983)). As part of the implementation and protection of this fundamental right to counse l,2 we

1

Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment, in pertinent part, provides: No State shall make or enforce any law w hich shall abridge the privileges or immun ities of citizens o f the Unite d States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liber ty, or p rope rty, without due proc ess of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

U.S. C ONST. amend. XIV. See Parren v. State , 309 Md. 260, 263, 523 A.2d 597, 598 (1987) (explaining that "the right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional right, basic to our adversary system of criminal justice") 2
2

adopted M aryland Rule 4-215,3 which explicates the method by which the right to counsel may be waived by those defendants wishing to represent themselves, the modalities by which a trial judge m ay find that a criminal def endant w aived imp licitly his or her right to c ounsel, either by failure or refusal to obtain counsel, and the necessary litany of advisements that must be given to all criminal defendants before any finding of express or implied waiver of the right
3

to

be

represented

by

counsel

may

be

valid. 4

The

Rule

The Marylan d Rule s of Pro cedure have th e force of law . M D. C ONST., art. IV,

Download Broadwater v. State.pdf

Maryland Law