Preview:

HEADNOTE: State of Maryland v. Maurice Davis, No. 48, September Term, 2009 CRIMINAL LAW - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - MARYLAND RULE 4-215(e) SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S PRETRIAL STATEMENT TO TRIGGER MANDATORY INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO DISCHARGE COUNSEL Defendant was arrested and charged with the burglary of a McDonald's restaurant and the robbery of two of its employees. On the morning of trial, in front of an administrative judge, Defendant's attorney mentioned an earlier conversation in which Defendant had told him that he "[w]anted a jury trial and new counsel." Despite this information, the court ordered the case to proceed to trial without investigating Defendant's reasons for seeking different representation. Maryland Rule 4-215(e) mandates that, when a defendant seeks permission from the court to discharge counsel, the court must "permit the defendant to explain the reasons for the request." The court must conduct such an inquiry even if it is the attorney, rather than the defendant, who presents the petition to the court. The request need not conform to a set formula in order to trigger Rule 4-215(e), so long as a court could reasonably conclude that the defendant sought to discharge counsel. Here, the attorney's statement properly notified the court that Defendant was unhappy with current counsel and desired new representation. Thus, the court's failure to allow Defendant to explain his reasons constituted reversible error.

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. 03-K-06-002076

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 48 September Term, 2009

STATE OF MARYLAND v. MAURICE DAVIS

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J. Murphy, J., Dissents.

Filed: June 30, 2010

In this case we are called upon to determine whether a defense attorney's pretrial statements to an administrative judge were sufficient to trigger a Maryland Rule 4-215(e) inquiry into the merits of the defendant's request to discharge counsel. Maurice Davis was arrested and charged with the burglary of a McDonald's restaurant and the robbery of two of its employees in Baltimore County. On the morning of trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, defense counsel told the court that, in his earlier conversation with Davis, the defendant had expressed unhappiness with his attorney's evaluation of the case, and that Davis "[w]anted a jury trial and new counsel." Despite this information, the court ordered the case to proceed to trial without investigating Davis's reasons for seeking different representation. A jury later convicted Davis of two counts each of simple robbery and robbery with a dangerous weapon, as well as one count of second-degree burglary,1 and he appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals ("CSA"), arguing that defense counsel's pretrial announcement served as a Rule 4-215(e) request to discharge counsel and that the Circuit Court's failure to ascertain Davis's rationale for the request constituted a reversible error. The CSA agreed with Davis's assessment of the pretrial dialogue, leading it to vacate his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. We agree with the intermediate appellate court and affirm its judgment. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Md. Code (2002),

Download State v. Davis.pdf

Maryland Law