Tate v. State

459 Md. 587

187 A.3d 660

Brian TATE

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 65, Sept. Term, 2017

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 25, 2018

Reconsideration Denied July 30, 2018

Argued by Booth Marcus Ripke (Nathans & Biddle, LLP, Baltimore, MD) on brief, for Petitioner.

William Alden McDaniel, Jr., Esquire, Ballard Spahr LLP, 18th Floor, 300 East Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 (Marsha Levick, Esquire, Deputy Director and Chief Counsel, Juvenile Law Center, The Philadelphia Building, Suite 400, 1315 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Of Counsel), amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Juvenile Law Center in support of Petitioner.

Argued by Edward J. Kelley, Asst. Atty. General (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD) on brief, for Respondent.

Argued Before: Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Lawrence F. Rodowsky (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) JJ.

Greene, J.

I.

The dispositive question before us in this case is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner Brian Arthur Tate knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. After failing to seek leave to appeal his conviction following his guilty plea and failing to obtain requested postconviction relief, Mr. Tate requested that his postconviction matter be reopened pursuant to Section 7–104 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol.) (" Crim. Proc. § 7–104"). Mr. Tate alleged that this Court's decision in State v. Daughtry , 419 Md. 35, 18 A.3d 60 (2011), required, in the interests of justice, that the postconviction hearing judge reconsider his decision to deny Mr. Tate relief. The postconviction hearing judge reopened the case and, thereafter, vacated Mr. Tate's guilty plea. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals reversed that decision.

This Court granted certiorari and now affirms the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. The record of the plea hearing alone demonstrates that Mr. Tate entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Additionally, the postconviction hearing judge reopened the proceedings and vacated the guilty plea based on this Court's opinion in Daughtry . Procedural distinctions preclude Daughtry's application to the present case. Believing that Daughtry had changed the law and, thus, it was in the interests of justice to reopen Mr. Tate's postconviction proceedings and set aside his guilty plea, the postconviction hearing judge erred and abused his discretion.

II.

Brian Arthur Tate pleaded guilty to first-degree murder based on the following statement of facts. On February 24, 1992, Mr. Tate engaged in an altercation with the victim on or near Summit Drive in Annapolis, Maryland. Eventually, Mr. Tate dragged the victim's body behind a nearby shed. Then Mr. Tate left the scene. An autopsy conducted by the State's medical examiner revealed that the victim had endured 24 stab wounds and slashes to multiple parts of his body, including the back, lungs, liver, neck, arms, and hands. Additionally, the victim suffered blunt force trauma to the head which caused various bone fractures. The police recovered a broken knife, the suspected murder weapon, at the scene of the crime.

As a result of investigation, Anne Arundel County Police learned from various witnesses that Mr. Tate had threatened the victim several times prior to the altercation because the victim had begun to date Mr. Tate's former girlfriend. One such threat included that Mr. Tate planned to dress in dark clothing to catch the victim by surprise, stab him, cut his throat, and after the victim died, Mr. Tate would continue to physically assault the victim. Another such threat indicated that Mr. Tate had been sharpening his knife in preparation for the assault. Witnesses also admitted to seeing a knife and sharpening stone in Mr. Tate's bedroom prior to the homicide as well as seeing Mr. Tate with brass knuckles on the day of the homicide. After the police conducted a search of Mr. Tate's home, they recovered a blood-stained black ski jacket. A DNA test established that the victim's DNA was on the jacket. Lastly, as a result of the search, police uncovered brass knuckles and the victim's wallet in Mr. Tate's home.

Plea Hearing and Sentencing

On March 16, 1992, a grand jury in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County indicted Brian Arthur Tate in case number K–92–862 for: first-degree murder, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, robbery, assault with intent to commit robbery, and theft. In an unrelated case, case number K–92–863, Mr. Tate was charged with several counts of attempted murder, arson, burning the personal property of another, and reckless endangerment. Mr. Tate pleaded guilty to first-degree murder on November 2, 1992 in exchange for the State entering a nolle prosequi ("nol pros") to the remaining charges contained in indictment number K–92–862, as well as charges in indictment number K–92–863. The State agreed to withdraw its request for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The State also agreed not to oppose Mr. Tate's request for admission to the Patuxent Institution. The State and the defendant expressed, in general terms, that they agreed to the conditions, including Mr. Tate pleading guilty to first-degree murder that occurred in the way expressed in a detailed statement of facts. Thereafter, the Honorable Raymond

G.

Thieme, the plea hearing judge, directly addressed the voluntariness of Mr. Tate's decision to plead guilty:

THE COURT: Ha[ve your attorneys] gone over [t]his letter of October 30, 1992[,] with you?

MR. TATE: Yes, [they have].

THE COURT: Ha[ve they] read to you, or have you read the statement of facts that are attached thereto?¹

MR. TATE: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: Ha[ve they] told you the consequences of coming in here pleading guilty?

MR. TATE: Yes, [they have], Your Honor.

THE COURT: Told you what rights you are giving up?

MR. TATE: Yes, [they have].

THE COURT: Do you understand the maximum penalty could be up to life?

MR. TATE: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Now, other than what has been set forth in this letter, have there been any other inducements or promises of any type to get you to come in here and plead guilty?

MR. TATE: Not that I am aware of, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Has anyone threatened you?

MR. TATE: No one.

THE COURT: Are you under the influence of any alcohol, drugs, narcotics, or other pills?

MR. TATE: No, I'm not.

Notably, Judge Thieme inquired into Mr. Tate's educational level, his mental health status, and his prior criminal record:

THE COURT: How far did you go in school?

MR. TATE: Halfway through my junior year, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, other than this case, where I know you have been examined by various mental health individuals, before this case have you ever been under the care of a psychiatrist or in a mental institution?

MR. TATE: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: How long ago?

[MR. TATE'S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, if it pleases the Court, some months before the incident in question, Brian, after a series of difficulties at home and school, was presented by his parents in the offices of a Dr. Steven Lasht, who I believe is a licensed social worker, perhaps [a] psychologist, for some counseling sessions.

I have seen some statements, very brief statements, coming out of those interviews, and it does not appear that there was anything suggested in that counseling that would indicate that Mr. Tate, Brian Tate, did not understand the nature of the proceedings before the Court today.

THE COURT: Mr. Tate, is that correct?

MR. TATE: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you now on parole or probation for anything?

MR. TATE: No, I am not.

Then Judge Thieme assessed Mr. Tate's understanding of his decision to plead guilty to first-degree murder:

THE COURT: Were you given a copy of the charges?

MR. TATE: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: Have you read it and discussed it with your attorney[s]?

MR. TATE: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: Do you understand what you are charged with?

MR. TATE: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you understand what you are pleading guilty to?

MR. TATE: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Now, I am telling you, these charges aren't evidence. They are only accusations. You have a right to plead not guilty. If you plead not guilty[,] [ ] you could be found [not] guilty, the charges have to be proved by evidence, which convinces a jury, or a [c]ourt, if you want, that you are guilty to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty. Do you understand that?

MR. TATE: Yes, I do.

A part of Judge Thieme's assessment included questions regarding Mr. Tate's belief in the competence of his defense attorneys as well as their advice:

THE COURT: Did you tell your attorneys all the facts about this case?

MR. TATE: Excuse me, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you tell your attorneys all the facts about this case as best you know them[?]

MR. TATE: Yes[,] I have.

THE COURT: Did they tell you what you can do in court?

MR. TATE: Yes.

THE COURT: Is there anything you wanted them to do that they haven't done?

MR. TATE: No, there isn't. They've done everything they can.

THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the services of your attorneys?

MR. TATE: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Do you believe they are competent?

MR. TATE: Yes, I do.

Notwithstanding Mr. Tate affirming that his attorneys explained to him the consequences of a guilty plea, Judge Thieme also explained the ramifications to Mr. Tate on the record:

THE COURT: I am telling you, even though in fact you may be guilty of this offense to which you are pleading guilty, you have a right to plead not guilty. You are entitled to a speedy public trial by either a jury or Court, whichever you want, and you have a right to have your attorney with you throughout your trial. Do you understand you are giving up those right[s]?

MR. TATE: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you understand you are giving up your right to a trial by jury?

MR. TATE: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Now, I am telling you, a jury consists of 12 people selected at random from this county, each of them at least 18 years of age. To find you guilty[,]

...