Smith v. State

480 Md. 534

281 A.3d 154

Kenyatta M. SMITH

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 26, Sept. Term, 2021

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

August 15, 2022

Argued by Michael T. Torres, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner

Argued by Karinna M. Rossi, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent

Argued before: *Getty, C.J.^* McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, JJ.

Getty, C.J.

The case before us involves a petition for the extraordinary remedy of a writ of error coram nobis , which overturns a person's prior criminal convictions. Petitioner Kenyatta M. Smith ("Ms. Smith") has twenty-year old convictions for forgery and fraud/identity theft. Due to these felony convictions, Ms. Smith is not eligible to receive the license required to work as a mortgage loan originator under Maryland law. As such, Ms. Smith petitioned the Circuit Court of Baltimore County for a writ of error coram nobis , which the circuit court ultimately denied. The circumstances of that denial led to the present appeal. Accordingly, this Court is asked to resolve whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Ms. Smith's petition for writ of error coram nobis . For the reasons explained in detail below, considering the legislative purpose of the Maryland mortgage loan originator licensing statute and the fact that granting Ms. Smith's petition for writ of error coram nobis would effectively circumvent a federal mandate on mortgage loan originator licensing requirements, we answer that question in the negative and affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

BACKGROUND

A. The Underlying Convictions

On June 3, 2002, the District Court for Baltimore County convicted Ms. Smith of one count of forgery and two counts of fraud/identity theft. Ms. Smith subsequently appealed her convictions to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, where she then entered a guilty plea to all counts.

The underlying circumstances that led to these convictions involved Ms. Smith using, without authorization, her former employer's personal identifying information, including the employer's name, tax identification number, and social security number, to obtain a commercial loan for $40,000.00. Ms. Smith then used checks bearing her former employer's forged signature to deposit the fraudulently obtained loan into her personal bank account. Ms. Smith purchased a Lexus automobile from a Lexus dealership in Reisterstown, Maryland with the fraudulently obtained money.

The circuit court sentenced Ms. Smith to three years of incarceration, all suspended. The circuit court did not require Ms. Smith to pay restitution because after her convictions of forgery and fraud/identity theft, Ms. Smith sold the automobile, used the proceeds of the sale to pay back the loan, converted the loan to her name and then continued making payments on the outstanding balance.

B. Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

On May 21, 2015, over a decade after her convictions, counsel for Ms. Smith filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis ("Petition") with the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, requesting that the circuit court vacate the forgery and fraud/identity theft convictions. The Petition argued that Ms. Smith's entry of a guilty plea should be invalidated because neither the circuit court nor Ms. Smith's counsel advised her of the following:

(1) the offenses to which she was pleading guilty; (2) the elements of the crime to which she was pleading guilty; (3) the presumption of innocence; (4) her forfeit of preliminary motions to contest the charging document, arrest, any confession or statement, results of searches and seizures, pretrial or in-court identifications, or other technical defenses; (5) or of the immigration or other collateral consequences of entering a plea of guilt.

Accordingly, counsel for Ms. Smith argued that the "plea was involuntary[.]"

Additionally, the Petition asserted that Ms. Smith faces significant collateral consequences as a result of these convictions. Specifically, Ms. Smith is disqualified from obtaining a mortgage loan originator's license pursuant to Maryland Code (1980, 2020 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.) Financial Institutions Article ("FI") § 11-605,¹ and Ms. Smith lost "the opportunity for employment in her field on at least five separate occasions[.]" Counsel for Ms. Smith attached two exhibits to the Petition—the transcript from Ms. Smith's hearing before the circuit court on September 20, 2002, and a letter from the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation ("DLLR") denying Ms. Smith's application for a mortgage loan originator's license dated January 26, 2007. The hearing transcript from the guilty plea hearing reflects that neither the circuit court nor Ms. Smith's counsel advised her of the nature and elements of the offenses to which she pleaded guilty. The letter from DLLR specifically cited Ms. Smith's felony conviction for "forgery[—]private documents" as "negatively relat[ing] to [her] fitness and qualification to act as a mortgage originator."

C. The Circuit Court's Initial Denial of the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

The Circuit Court for Baltimore County issued a memorandum opinion and order on August 18, 2015 denying Ms. Smith's Petition without a hearing. In its analysis, the circuit court relied on State v. Hicks , which articulated that the following five conditions must be satisfied for coram nobis relief to be granted:

(1) [T]he grounds for challenging the criminal conviction must be of a constitutional, jurisdictional or fundamental character.

(2) [A] presumption of regularity attaches to the criminal case, and the burden of proof is on the coram nobis petitioner.

(3) [T]he coram nobis petitioner must be suffering or facing significant collateral consequences from the conviction.

(4) Basic principles of waiver are applicable to issues raised in coram nobis proceedings.

(5) [O]ne is not entitled to challenge a criminal conviction by a coram nobis proceeding if another statutory or common law remedy is then available.

139 Md. App. 1, 10, 773 A.2d 1056 (2001) (citing Skok v. State , 361 Md. 52, 78–80, 760 A.2d 647 (2000) ).

The circuit court acknowledged that Ms. Smith was "not advised of the nature and elements of the crimes to which she was pleading guilty[,]" and that Ms. Smith had exhausted all other potential legal remedies. However, the circuit court disagreed that Ms. Smith had suffered "significant collateral consequences" as a result of these convictions. The circuit court stated that Ms. Smith "is simply unable to work in the industry of her choosing. The financial industry has vested and obvious reasons for refusing to hire individuals with convictions for fraud and forgery. It is, therefore, not unjust that she cannot work in that industry because of the convictions." The circuit court also determined that Ms. Smith waived her right to coram nobis relief "because she did not appeal her conviction when it occurred in 2002."

D. Appeal to the Court of Special Appeals & the Circuit Court's Remand Hearing

Ms. Smith timely appealed the circuit court's denial of her Petition to the Court of Special Appeals. On August 1, 2016, the intermediate appellate court vacated the judgment of the circuit court in an unreported opinion and remanded the case for the circuit court to hold a hearing on the Petition. See Smith v. State , No. 1605, slip op. at 1, 2016 WL 4074146 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 1, 2016). The Court of Special Appeals concluded that "the circuit court was wrong to deny [Ms. Smith's Petition] without a hearing," and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the circuit court. Id . Judge Daniel A. Friedman authored a concurring opinion, maintaining "that the test for ‘significant collateral consequences’ is not supposed to be quite so high a bar as the trial court originally set it[.]" Smith v. State , No. 1605, slip op. at 2, 2016 WL 4074146 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 1, 2016) (Friedman, J., concurring). The concurring opinion set forth that "economic harm, even without more, can satisfy the ‘significant collateral consequences’ element of the test for issuance of the writ of coram nobis." Id . at 3.

The remand hearing took place in the circuit court on February 17, 2017. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for Ms. Smith stated, "[a]nd in speaking with the State, we're both of the opinion we're sort of back only on the collateral consequences prong if you will[.]" The State agreed and responded that it would not be introducing any evidence at the hearing. Ms. Smith's counsel reiterated that Ms. Smith's convictions prevent her from working in the mortgage loan origination industry, and proffered that her convictions have: (1) prevented her from obtaining jobs from at least four private sector firms; (2) prevented her from obtaining work with a salary comparable to what she would be earning as a mortgage loan originator; (3) led numerous recruiters to conclude that a background check would preclude her from particular job opportunities; and (4) resulted in potential educational funding being cut off. Additionally, Ms. Smith's counsel highlighted that these hardships are exacerbated by the fact that Ms. Smith is a single mother with a liver condition, which limits her mobility.

On September 18, 2017, the circuit court issued a memorandum opinion, denying Ms. Smith's Petition on the grounds that Ms. Smith had not established significant collateral consequences. The circuit court explained that prohibiting an individual with underlying forgery and fraud/identity theft convictions from obtaining employment in a profession that strongly values honesty and integrity, such as the mortgage loan origination field, is not an uncommon occurrence. Accordingly, the circuit court found that Ms. Smith's employment difficulties were "incommensurate with the extraordinary and compelling circumstances that...