Preview:

State of Maryland v. Marvin Williamson, No. 75, September Term 2008. POST CONVICTION RELIEF -- 10-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Petitioner Marvin Williamson was convicted of murder on June 25, 1968, and was sentenced to life in prison. On July 31, 2007, nearly 40 years after sentencing, Williamson filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The State moved to dismiss the petition, in part, under the 10-year statute of limitations contained in Section 7-103 (b)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Article, Maryland Code (2001, 2007 Supp.), which became effective October 1, 1995. The judge granted the State's motion, holding that the 10-year statute of limitations applied to petitioners convicted before 1995, as well as those convicted after, and that Williamson had only ten years after 1995 to file a petition. Williamson appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed and remanded, holding that no time-limit applied to persons convicted before October 1, 1995. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and remanded to the Circuit Court, rejecting the State's contention that the 10-year period began on October 1, 1995, and holding that "[t]he limitations period, therefore, has absolutely no application to individuals sentenced before October 1, 1995."

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 75 September Term, 2008

STATE OF MARYLAND v. MARVIN WILLIAMSON

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

Opinion by Battaglia, J.

Filed: April 10, 2009

On June 25, 1968, Marvin Williamson was found guilty in the murder of Joseph Caslow in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. A Motion for a New Trial was denied, and Williamson was sentenced to imprisonment for "the balance of his natural life." The docket indicates that Williamson filed a post-conviction petition on November 29, 1977, which was withdrawn without prejudice.1 On July 31, 2007, nearly 40 years after sentencing, Williamson filed his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, asserting that because his trial counsel was ineffective for a number of reasons, his conviction and sentence should be set aside, and he should be granted a new trial, as well as the ability to file an Application for Review of Sentence and a Motion for Modification of Sentence. The petition alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for "failing to investigate the case prior to trial and failing to uncover evidence that would have affected the outcome of the trial," as well as neglecting to file both an Application for Review of Sentence and a Motion for Modification or Reconsideration of Sentence and for failing to provide "effective assistance of counsel during

The docket entries also reflect that another post-conviction petition, bearing the same petition number as the 1977 petition, was filed on May 21, 1980. Williamson, however, argues that no second petition was filed and, further, that he "has not been in any courthouse since his conviction in 1968." A Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Post Conviction Relief, dated November 5, 1980, and signed by Judge Mary Arabian, appears in the record; the Opinion notes that, "[a]n evidentiary hearing was held on August 19, 1980, and continued to October 15, 1980, the Petitioner being represented by [counsel]." The record also reflects that on December 12, 1980, the Court of Special Appeals denied Williamson's application for leave to appeal from the circuit court's denial of post conviction relief.

1

the pretrial process, the trial, and in the failure to appeal." The petition further alleged that the trial court was in error for "reliev[ing] the jury of the obligation to find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charges against [Williamson]" and that trial counsel should have "challenge[d] the improper jury instruction." By letter, dated January 29, 2008, counsel for Williamson limited his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel to "failing to file an Application for Review of Sentence by a three judge panel" and for "failing to file a Motion for Modification or Reconsideration of Sentence," which could be "converted into a Motion to Reopen," were the judge to determine that the two issues had been raised and decided in a prior post conviction case. The State moved to dismiss the Petition, arguing that it failed to meet the content requirements of Maryland Rule 4-402 (a),2 and subsequently filed a Response in Opposition

2

Maryland Rule 4-402 (a) relates to post conviction petitions and states: (a) Content. The petition shall state whether or not petitioner is able to pay costs of the proceeding or to employ counsel and shall include: (1) The petitioner's name, place of confinement, and inmate identification number. (2) The place and date of trial, the offense for which the petitioner was convicted, and the sentence imposed. (3) The allegations of error upon which the petition is based. (4) A concise statement of facts supporting the allegations of error. (5) The relief sought. (6) A statement of all previous proceedings, including appeals, motions for new trial and previous post conviction petitions, and the determinations made thereon. (7) A statement of the facts or special circumstances which (continued...)
2

to Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, in which it argued that Williamson's claims were either previously litigated or waived and in which it also denied that Williamson's counsel was ineffective. The State further proffered that Williamson "waited 39 years to institute this claim," and that, because there were no trial transcripts, Williamson could "not demonstrate deficient performance of counsel and prejudice resulting therefrom." A supplement to the State's Response claimed that, because Williamson did not file within the 10-year filing period set forth in Section 7-103 (b)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Article, Maryland Code (2001, 2007 Supp.), his Petition must be dismissed.3 The judge granted the State's Motion to Dismiss. In an accompanying Memorandum and Opinion, the judge concluded that, "[i]t is this Court's position that Petitioners who were sentenced prior to October 1, 1995 have ten years from the enactment of the limitations provisions of

Download State v. Williamson.pdf

Maryland Law