MD Supreme Court broadens, clarifies criminal defendants’ appellate rights

Listen to this article

In a pair of rulings Wednesday, the Maryland Supreme Court broadened the rights of criminal defendants on appeal and clarified defendants’ rights beyond the trial stage.

The high court’s unanimous decisions in Seamus Coyle v. State and Harry Davis, Jr. v. State, were both authored by Justice Shirley Watts. The rulings respectively give criminal defendants, for the first time, the right to the effective assistance of counsel in filing discretionary appeals to the high court where counsel is authorized under the Maryland Public Defender Act to represent an indigent defendant and takes responsibility for filing a petition for writ of certiorari, and allow defendants to show ineffective assistance of counsel based on their attorney’s failure to file a motion for a sentence modification in certain circumstances.

In Coyle, a case of first impression, the high court found Coyle’s panel attorney — who had been assigned by the state public defender’s office following a conflict of interest — did not provide Coyle effective assistance of counsel when the attorney failed to file a certiorari petition after discussing filing the petition with Coyle.

Though criminal defendants in Maryland do not have a right to counsel at the certiorari stage, the high court determined an attorney who undertakes responsibility for filing a certiorari petition must provide effective assistance of counsel.

“To be clear, we do not hold that under the [Maryland Public Defender] Act a defendant is entitled to representation in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari; we hold only that where an attorney is authorized or designated by the OPD under the Act to file a petition for a writ of certiorari on a person’s behalf, the person is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel,” Watts wrote, adding the attorney must be aware of the OPD’s authorization and have accepted the assignment.

The high court in Coyle seemingly adopted the view of Judge Douglas R. M. Nazarian in his dissent in the Maryland Appellate Court’s ruling that Coyle did not have a right to counsel, where Nazarian wrote that even though Coyle did not have a right to counsel at the certiorari stage, Coyle was entitled to effective representation once counsel was appointed.

Counsel for Coyle did not respond to a request for comment and a spokesperson for the Maryland Attorney General’s office declined to comment on both the Coyle and Davis decisions.

Christopher Mincher, partner at Silverman Thompson who practices appellate law, said the Coyle ruling slightly broadens the rights of criminal defendants on appeal, though Mincher says the real-world impact of the decision is minimal because most attorneys designated to file certiorari petitions do so on time.

“This certainly makes sense as a policy matter,” Mincher said in a phone call Friday. “I think a lot of people were really uncomfortable with the idea that there would not be a remedy when the attorney doesn’t file a cert petition at all (when a decision was previously made to file a certiorari petition).”

In Davis, the high court held a defendant may establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to file a motion for sentence modification by showing counsel failed to consult with the defendant about filing the motion — and counsel’s failure to consult with the defendant was not reasonable — and that the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to have the court consider a motion for sentence modification because of counsel’s deficient performance.

“Where there is reason to believe that a rational defendant under similar circumstances would want a motion for modification of sentence to be filed, the failure to consult with the defendant about filing a motion for modification of sentence is conduct that falls below an objectively reasonable standard,” Watts wrote.

Douglas Nivens II, an attorney with the Maryland Office of the Public Defender’s appellate division and counsel for Davis on appeal, said motions for sentence reduction play a critical role in giving individuals a second chance to review their sentences and inspires them to take classes, attend programs, and maintain good behavior while incarcerated.

“The court’s decision affirms that defendants must be advised of their right to file this motion and to have counsel assist them in the process,” Nivens said in an email Friday. “We hope this decision will provide meaningful relief to individuals like Mr. Davis who lost the opportunity to file a motion through no fault of their own.”

Aidan Smith, trial attorney with Pessin Katz Law who practices criminal law, said the high court’s ruling emphasizes counsel be aware of procedural mechanisms at play in their cases and adequately advise clients.

“I think it reemphasizes what good practice is to attorneys,” Smith said. “You need to advise the client of those procedural mechanisms and you need to avail yourselves of them.”

A Baltimore County Circuit Court jury convicted Coyle of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and use of a handgun during a violent crime in 2010, from which the court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Maryland Appellate Court affirmed Coyle’s convictions in a 2014 decision; the circuit court denied Coyle’s petition for postconviction relief following his attorney failing to file a certiorari petition.

A Baltimore City Circuit Court jury in 2013 convicted Davis of second-degree murder, assault, and openly wearing and carrying a dangerous weapon, from which the court sentenced him to 72 years imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, and the high court subsequently denied Davis’ certiorari petition.

The high court’s rulings on Wednesday allow Coyle to file a certiorari petition to the court and instruct the circuit court to grant Davis the opportunity to file a belated motion for sentence modification.