McCaine v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

McCaine v. Director, Patuxent Institution

260 A.2d 347, 8 Md. App. 393, 1970 Md. App. LEXIS 358

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJanuary 9, 1970

DocketNo. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.2d 347 (McCaine v. Director, Patuxent Institution) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCaine v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 260 A.2d 347, 8 Md. App. 393, 1970 Md. App. LEXIS 358 (Md. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this application for leave to appeal from a denial of Post Conviction relief by the lower court, it is contended that applicant’s convictions for armed robbery, assault with intent to murder and carrying a concealed weapon, rest upon guilty pleas which were not voluntarily and intelligently made in that applicant did not understand the nature and consequences of entering such pleas.

The hearing judge, according to his memorandum denying relief, found that “this bald allegation” by the applicant was not supported by “testimony or evidence to show any deficiency or handicap which he might have in being able to understand the nature of the proceedings;” that the applicant had been urged to enter the guilty pleas by his sister; that he had previously been convicted of larceny, burglary and other serious crimes; and that his trial counsel was a distinguished member of the Bar.

It would appear from the record before us that the hearing judge did not have before him a transcript of what occurred in open court at the time the applicant’s guilty pleas were entered. Nor would it appear that he had the benefit of any testimony from applicant’s trial counsel, testimony that would appear to be particularly enlightening under the circumstances of this case. While we have held that a guilty plea, knowingly and intelligently made, stands for a conviction of the highest order, Kitonis v. Warden, 6 Md. App. 110, 113, the sina qua non to such conviction is a convincing demonstration that the guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently entered. As we stated in Silverberg v. Warden, 7 Md. App. 657, 662: “Maryland has long followed the rule that there is reversible error where the record does not disclose that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly entered his guilty plea. Edwards v. State, 7 Md. App. 327.” Since it would appear that the record before the hearing judge was not adequate to permit him to make a determina[395]*395tion whether the applicant’s pleas were knowingly and intelligently entered at the time of his trial, we shall grant the application for leave to appeal and remand the case in order that such a determination may be made upon a proper record.

Application granted; case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Morton, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this application for leave to appeal from a denial of Post Conviction relief by the lower court, it is contended that applicant’s convictions for armed robbery, assault with intent to murder and carrying a concealed weapon, rest upon guilty pleas which were not voluntarily and intelligently made in that applicant did not understand the nature and consequences of entering such pleas.

The hearing judge, according to his memorandum denying relief, found that “this bald allegation” by the applicant was not supported by “testimony or evidence to show any deficiency or handicap which he might have in being able to understand the nature of the proceedings;” that the applicant had been urged to enter the guilty pleas by his sister; that he had previously been convicted of larceny, burglary and other serious crimes; and that his trial counsel was a distinguished member of the Bar.

It would appear from the record before us that the hearing judge did not have before him a transcript of what occurred in open court at the time the applicant’s guilty pleas were entered. Nor would it appear that he had the benefit of any testimony from applicant’s trial counsel, testimony that would appear to be particularly enlightening under the circumstances of this case. While we have held that a guilty plea, knowingly and intelligently made, stands for a conviction of the highest order, Kitonis v. Warden, 6 Md. App. 110, 113, the sina qua non to such conviction is a convincing demonstration that the guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently entered. As we stated in Silverberg v. Warden, 7 Md. App. 657, 662: “Maryland has long followed the rule that there is reversible error where the record does not disclose that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly entered his guilty plea. Edwards v. State, 7 Md. App. 327.” Since it would appear that the record before the hearing judge was not adequate to permit him to make a determina[395]*395tion whether the applicant’s pleas were knowingly and intelligently entered at the time of his trial, we shall grant the application for leave to appeal and remand the case in order that such a determination may be made upon a proper record.

Application granted; case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.2d 347, 8 Md. App. 393, 1970 Md. App. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccaine-v-director-patuxent-institution-mdctspecapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack