Coyle v. State

1

SEAMUS ANTHONY COYLE v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1440-2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

March 25, 2024

UNREPORTED^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. 03-K-10-001691.

Nazarian, Reed, Zic, JJ. Opinion by Reed, J. Dissenting Opinion by Nazarian, J.

OPINION

Reed J.

In the instant appeal, the Appellant, Seamus Anthony Coyle was charged by criminal indictment in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree assault, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. Following a jury trial that spanned four days, the jury found Coyle guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Following sentencing^[1], Coyle exercised his right to a direct appeal to this Court and alleged various errors by the trial court. On appeal, we affirmed the convictions.

Coyle subsequently filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, and a hearing was held on the Petition on October 22, 2020. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Next, Coyle filed an Application for Leave to Appeal, which we granted on November 17, 2021. In bringing this appeal, Appellant presents three issues for appellate review, which we reorder and restate as follows:

I. Under the Public Defender Act, was Coyle's right to effective counsel violated when counsel failed to timely file the petition for writ of certiorari?

II. When the Office of the Public Defender appointed counsel and approved the petition of certiorari being filed, was Coyle entitled to effective assistance of counsel?

III. Did the trial court err in holding that Coyle must establish that his petition for writ of certiorari would have been granted by the Supreme Court of Maryland?^[2]

For the reasons outlined infra, we affirm the trial court and deny Coyle the right to file a belated petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Maryland.

Factual &Procedural Background

On March 1, 2010, William Raymond Porter was shot and killed at a Hess gas station in Towson. An investigation into the shooting revealed that Walter Bishop shot the decedent after Porter's wife, Karla Porter hired him and supplied a firearm for the commission of the crime. The investigation also revealed other people participated in the conspiracy to kill Mr. Porter, including Seamus Coyle (Ms. Porter's nephew) and Meagan Porter (Ms. Porter's daughter). Coyle was charged as a co-conspirator in the murder. At trial, the State's theory was that Coyle arranged for Bishop to commit the murder on Ms. Porter's behalf. The evidence showed that Ms. Porter contacted various people in an attempt to hire someone to kill her husband, including her daughter's boyfriend.

At trial, the State introduced evidence to prove their theory by displaying phone records that demonstrated a pattern of communication. First, Ms. Porter would call her nephew and then he would immediately call Bishop. Further evidence of the conspiracy included testimony that all three parties met at two meetings to discuss the plan to kill Mr. Porter.^[3] Further evidence from the trial will be discussed as needed later in the opinion.

Following the jury trial, the jury found Coyle guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and use of a handgun in a crime of violence or felony. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of life in prison for first-degree murder, twenty-five (25) years for conspiracy to commit murder, and five (5) years without possibility of parole for use of a handgun in a crime of violence. Coyle timely filed an appeal following his convictions and alleged that the trial court committed error throughout the course of the trial.^[4] On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court in an unreported opinion. Seamus Anthony Coyle v. State, No. 0997, Sept. Term 2012, filed: July 11, 2014. Following the decision, counsel for the Appellant was preparing to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari but missed the deadline to file with the Supreme Court of Maryland.

On June 29, 2020, Coyle filed a Petition for Post Conviction Relief and Request for Hearing. Coyle alleged various errors by both trial counsel and appellate counsel. Namely, Coyle argued that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to seek accommodations for his hearing impairment, failing to object to questions during voir dire, failing to strike a juror, failing to object to the state's improper closing argument, and failing to file a motion to modify sentence at the conclusion of trial. Coyle also argued for relief by alleging that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to meet the deadline to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari on time to the Supreme Court of Maryland. The State filed an Answer to the Petition responding to each point in the Petition and requested that the Petition be denied.

The post-conviction court held a hearing on the Petition on October 22, 2020. The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Post Conviction Relief on March 18, 2021. The court ultimately concluded that there was no basis for relief based on Coyle's various arguments. As to Coyle's argument that his appellate counsel was ineffective, the court ruled that Coyle did not suffer prejudice under the Strickland test and, even further, stated that "there is not the slightest possibility that the Court of Appeals of Maryland^[5]would have granted Certiorari in this action had a Petition been timely filed." Furthermore, the court denied Coyle's Petition for Post Conviction Relief in its entirety.

Following the decision by the court, Coyle filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to this Court on April 19, 2021, which was granted. The instant appeal followed.

Discussion

I. Right to Counsel under the Public Defender Statute

A. Parties' Contentions

Coyle contends that he had a right to appellate counsel to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Maryland under the Public Defender Act ("PDA"), as amended in 2008. He argues that the statute extends the right to counsel for all stages of an appeal, including the filing of discretionary appeals such as a petition for writ of certiorari. Specifically, Coyle argues that the statute was amended in 2008 to remove specific language that the right to counsel only encompassed an appeal through the intermediate appellate court. Finally, Coyle argues that the rights conferred in the Public Defender Act trump the right to counsel as set forth in Md. Rule 4-214, discussed in further detail infra. We disagree with all of these contentions.

The State responds by arguing that Coyle does not have the right to counsel under the Public Defender Act to file discretionary appeals. The State disagrees that the Public Defender Act prevails over Md. Rule 4-214. After reviewing the legislative history for the Public Defender Act, the State contends that the Act was not substantively changed in 2008. The State further argues that deletions were made to the Act to remove specific language that was determined to be surplusage.

B. Standard of Review

"[W]here an order [of the trial court] involves an interpretation and application of Maryland constitutional, statutory or case law, our Court must determine whether the trial court's conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review." Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Thornton Mellon, LLC, 478 Md. 396, 410 (2022) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Due to the argument that Coyle had a right to counsel under statutory authority, we conduct a de novo review.

C. Analysis

Coyle asserts his claim that he had a right to counsel for his discretionary appeal under the Public Defender Act as enacted in Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 16-204. In whole, this statute provides:

Representation provided by Public Defender

(a) Representation of an indigent individual may be provided in accordance with this title by the Public Defender or subject to the supervision of the Public Defender, by the deputy public defenders, district public defenders, assistant public defenders, or panel attorneys.

Proceedings eligible for representation (b) (1) Indigent defendants or parties shall be provided representation under this title in:

(i) a criminal or juvenile proceeding in which a defendant or party is alleged to have committed a serious offense;

(ii) a criminal or juvenile proceeding in which an attorney is constitutionally required to be present prior to presentment being made before a commissioner or judge;

(iii) a postconviction proceeding for which the defendant has a right to an attorney under Title 7 of this article;

(iv) any other proceeding in which confinement under a judicial commitment of an individual in a public or private institution may result;

(v) a proceeding involving children in need of assistance under § 3-813 of the Courts Article; or (vi) a family law proceeding under Title 5, Subtitle 3, Part II or Part III of the Family Law Article, including:

1. for a parent, a hearing in connection with guardianship or adoption;

2. a hearing under § 5-326 of the Family Law Article for which the parent has not waived the right to notice; and

3. an appeal.

(2)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, representation shall be provided to an indigent individual in all stages of a proceeding listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection, including, in criminal proceedings, custody, interrogation, bail hearing before a District Court or circuit court judge, preliminary hearing, arraignment, trial, and appeal.

(ii) Representation is not required to be provided to an

...