Bishop v. State

BATTAGLIA, J. In this case, Robert Harvey Bishop, Jr., Petitioner, charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and related offenses, and the State, Respondent, entered into an agreement entitled, “PLEA BARGAIN: EXPLANATION OF AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RIGHTS * * * NOT GUILTY, AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS PLEA.” Thereafter, during a judicial proceeding, the State presented Bishop’s confession, which was later suppressed by the Court of Special Appeals on Sixth Amendment grounds, as well as a recording of telephone conversations, in which Bishop was a party, that was never admitted into evidence, about which Bishop’s counsel expressed pause, without any attempt at clarification by the State, in addition to a proffer of the two child victims’ testimony. From the decision of the Court of Special Appeals, affirming his conviction on the basis of harmless error, Bishop filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this ⁵ Court, which we granted, Bishop v. State, 411 Md. 740 , 985 A.2d 538 (2009), in which he presented the following questions: 1. Where the parties have proceeded by way of an agreed statement of facts, may an appellate court rely on evidence that was proffered by the State but disputed by the defense in determining that the improper denial of a motion to suppress is harmless error? 2. Under the circumstances of this case, did the intermediate appellate court err in holding that the improper denial of the motion to suppress Petitioner’s confession to the police is harmless error?

In response to these questions, which we will address as one, we shall vacate the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand to the Circuit Court for Cecil County for further proceedings, because harmless error analysis cannot be applied to the suppressed confession due to the murky record in this case, based upon the muddled plea agreement and proceedings themselves, coupled with an apparent dispute regarding the contents of telephone conversations, the recordings or transcripts of which were never admitted into evidence. In July 2007, Bishop, accompanied by counsel, appeared before a judge in the Circuit Court for Cecil County. An Assistant State’s Attorney called the case “for the purpose of plea at this time,” and the following ensued: [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: The defendant is going to enter a not guilty on a statement of facts to Count 1 and Count 3, which are both child sexual abuse counts. The state will nolle pros the other two counts in return for the plea.

We will be requesting a PSI and a new sentencing date. At the time of sentencing the state would recommend that twenty-five years be imposed; that ten be suspended; the defendant to serve fifteen years; five years supervised probation upon release. The counts, of course, are mandatory registration counts, and I believe that is a fair and accurate statement. ⁶ [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That’s correct, your Honor, that’s fair and accurate. For the record ... we had a motions hearing on the 25th of May; and for purposes—for any appellate purposes we are agreeing to go forward with the not guilty statement of facts, based on the decisions made at the motions hearing, or the denial of our motion for suppression at that motions hearing, your Honor.

Following the presentation of the plea agreement, the following exchange occurred between the clerk and the judge: [CLERK OF THE COURT]: All right. Mr. Bishop, if you would stand, please. THE COURT: He doesn’t need to be sworn, madam clerk, for a not guilty plea. ' The judge then inquired into Bishop’s decision to waive his right to a jury trial: THE COURT: Before we can proceed, Mr. Bishop, I have to ask you a number of questions, make a number of statements, to make sure in my mind that you understand what you are doing, you are doing it voluntarily, with full understanding of possible consequences. First of all, you are here because you have been indicted by the grand jury here in Cecil County.

Because of the nature of the charges returned and the possible penalties, you are entitled to a trial by jury. Now obviously if you are attempting to proceed on a not guilty plea agreed statement of facts there will be no trial by jury; but you still have to waive that right affirmatively on the record in open court. Are you waiving your right to a trial by jury? [BISHOP]: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: This form that you and your attorney have filled out, do you have any questions about that form at all? [BISHOP]: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: It explains to you in writing the rights that you are waiving by not having a trial by jury. Do you have any questions about those rights at all? [BISHOP]: No, your Honor. ⁷ The form referenced, which was signed by Bishop and his counsel, provided, in pertinent part: PLEA BARGAIN: EXPLANATION OF AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RIGHTS NOT GUILTY, AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS PLEA FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT TO A GUILTY PLEA—NO DIRECT APPEAL RIGHT (MD. RULE 4-242(c)) [ 1 ] Before the Court can accept your proceeding by way of a not guilty plea on an agreed statement of facts to one or more offenses to which you will no doubt be found guilty, you must answer some questions because the Court wants to make sure that you know what you are doing, you know what your rights are and you understand those rights, and that you are proceeding by way of an agreed statement of facts voluntarily. 1. My name is [Robert Harvey Bishop], 2.

I am [36] years of age. 3. The farthest I went in school was [high school grad. & tech, school], 4. I [can] read and write. 5. I am not presently under the influence of alcohol, drugs, narcotics, other pills or suffering from withdrawal symptoms from the use of them. 6.

Have you ever been under the care of a psychiatrist or a patient in a mental hospital or institution? [Yes]. 7. Is there anything presently wrong with you? [No]. ⁸ 8. I have discussed the matter of proceeding by way of an agreed statement of facts with my attorney and my attorney has advised me of my rights. I am technically pleading not guilty to the offense(s) listed below in paragraph 9.

However, my attorney, the prosecutor and I have agreed on a particular statement of facts concerning the offense(s) listed below in paragraph 9. Instead of my having a judge trial or a jury trial on the offense(s) listed below, the state or defense will present our agreed upon statement of facts to the court. That agreed upon statement of facts will be sufficient for the judge to find me guilty of the offense(s) listed below in paragraph 9. By proceeding in this manner I am still pleading not guilty and denying guilt.

I am not admitting to any of the conduct necessary to establish guilt. However, this is the “functional equivalent” of a guilty plea in that I am giving up a number of rights that a person entering a straight guilty plea under Md. Rule 4-242(c) gives up. After consulting with my attorney, I am proceeding in this manner because of the plea agreement and because I believe this is the best course of action I can take in this case. 9. I am proceeding by way of a not guilty plea on an agreed statement of facts to the following: Offense # 1: [child sex abuse] and Offense # 2: [child sex abuse].

As to each offense, if I were to proceed to trial, the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, if I had a jury trial, or to a judge, if I had a Court trial, the following matters which are called “elements” of the offense: Offense # 1: _Offense # 2:__In this case the agreed statement of facts will be sufficient for the court to find me guilty of each offense listed above. 10. I understand that the offenses carry the following maximum penalties: Offense #1: [25 yrs] [and] Offense # 2: [25 yrs]. 11. No one made me a promise of a lesser sentence, probation, reward, immunity or anything else in order to get ⁹ me to proceed in this manner, other than the plea agreement, which is: [plea to above counts, dismiss remaining]. 12. I understand that by proceeding in this manner I am giving up my absolute right to plead not guilty and have a trial.

If I pled not guilty and had a trial, the State would have to prove each and every count against me by proof beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. I understand that under the law I am presumed to be innocent, and if I pled not guilty and had a trial, the State would have this burden of proving each and every count against me. 18. I understand that in order for the State to prove me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it would have to bring into open court witnesses who would have to testify in front of me, and my attorney and I would have the right to cross-examine them. I understand that by proceeding in this manner today, I am giving up that right to require the State to produce evidence and witnesses against me and the right to cross-examine those witnesses. 14.

I understand that by proceeding in this manner I am giving up my right to be tried by a judge or jury. A trial by a judge would be a trial by a judge of the circuit court. I could not be found guilty in a judge trial unless the judge decided beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that I was guilty. A jury trial would be a trial by a group of twelve men and women from Cecil County chosen at random from the lists of registered voters, licensed drivers, and persons not licensed but who have state identification cards.

My attorney and I would participate in the selection of that jury. The jurors would be young and old, black, white, male, female, educated, uneducated and their verdict would have to be unanimous that I was either not guilty or that I was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. 15. I understand that I am giving up my rights to present evidence and to produce witnesses on my behalf, to ¹⁰ file preliminary motions, or to object to evidence and testimony introduced by the State. 16. I understand that I am giving up my right to testify on my own behalf concerning my guilt or innocence or to remain silent during a trial which is a Constitutional right guaranteed me under the law, and whether it were a court or a jury trial if I decided not to testify there could be no inference of guilty by the fact that I didn’t testify, because I do have the right to remain silent.

If it were a jury trial and I requested it of the judge, the judge would advise the jury that there could be no inference of guilt by reason of the fact that I did not testify, because I do have the absolute right to remain silent. 18. This is why my rights are being specified in this paper and explained to me by my attorney. I am proceeding in this manner freely and voluntarily without threat or fear to myself or anyone closely related to me. 19. Are you presently on parole or probation? [No].

I understand that if the offense(s) to which I am now proceeding by way of a not guilty, agreed statement of facts occurred while I was on parole or probation, OR if the offense(s) occurred after I received a sentence in another case which was going to have some term of probation in the future, my proceeding in this manner today and the court’s entering a verdict of guilty could be enough to violate that parole or probation and I could be required to serve the unserved or suspended portion of that sentence. 20. I also understand that by proceeding in this manner today and the court’s entering a verdict of guilty to a traffic offense, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration can assess points and/or suspend or revoke my driving privileges to the extent permitted by law. 21. If I am not a citizen of the U.S., my proceeding in this manner today and the court’s entering a verdict of guilty could be sufficient to cause me to be deported. Paragraph 17 included the following language: ¹¹ 17.

I understand that I am giving up my rights to appeal by proceeding in this manner. Technically, I would still have the right to file an application for leave or permission to appeal, but if the Court of Special Appeals accepted the appeal, it would be limited to the following issues: (1) whether or not this court had jurisdiction to try the case; (2) whether the judge gave me an illegal sentence; (3) whether or not my attorney had given me fair and adequate representation; and (4) whether or not my plea was made voluntarily, whether I knew my rights and were aware of the full consequences of making the plea, and whether I proceeded in this manner of my own free will. This paragraph appears as excised—crossed out with an “X”— in the record, although without initials of the parties. After the judge confirmed with Bishop that he understood the form and had no further questions, the following colloquy occurred: THE COURT: Very well.

The maximum penalty, should your plea be accepted, or should you be found guilty after the statement of facts, could be imprisonment of up to twenty-five years on each one of the two charges. At the time of sentencing your attorney will be making a recommendation. You heard the recommendation of the prosecutor. Parole and Probation will be making a recommendation, and there will be sentencing guidelines.

In the event that I exceed any or all of the recommendations or the guidelines, that would not be grounds for you to withdraw your plea and proceed on to trial. Do you understand that? [BISHOP]: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Besides the plea negotiations of your attorney has anybody made any promises, threats or other inducements to you to get you to do what you’re doing here this afternoon? [BISHOP]: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Now in a not guilty plea agreed statement of facts I will base my decision on your guilt or innocence on ¹² a statement to be provided to me orally by the prosecutor.

Chances are after he provides me with the statement, together with any additions or corrections that your attorney may make, I will find you guilty. In other words, I will base my decision only on the statement provided. Understood? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: And you are electing to proceed in this fashion, freely, voluntarily, with full understanding of the possible consequences? [DEFENDANT]: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I’m satisfied that Mr. Bishop understands what he’s doing, he is doing it voluntarily, with full understanding of the possible consequences. The State’s Attorney then proffered the “not guilty statement of facts,” which included the Miranda form, 2 as well as Bishop’s written and recorded confessions: [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Preliminarily at the time of the motion the state entered three exhibits, the miranda advise [sic] of rights form that the defendant was read and signed, the defendant—secondly, the defendant’s written statement; and third, a CD containing an audio recording of the statement that’s taken by Detective Streight. I would incorporate by reference those three exhibits into the not guilty statement of facts.

THE COURT: Very well. ¹³ The State’s Attorney then recited that to which R.B., one of the alleged victims, would have testified, 3 wherein she would have described instances where Bishop sexually abused R.B. and A.B., the other alleged victim. Thereafter, the State’s Attorney described a series of monitored telephone calls between Bishop and R.B., during which Bishop purportedly acknowledged sexually abusing both R.B. and A.B., although neither the recordings nor transcripts of them were admitted into evidence: [STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Detective Streight at this point made a series of consensual monitored telephone calls between [R.B.] and [Bishop] during which time he acknowledged having sex with [R.B.] and touching [A.B.]. If I may have just a second. I don’t believe the consensually monitored telephone calls were part of the suppression hearing, so I would offer as State’s Exhibit, I guess, 4 now, for purposes of the statement of facts, the consensual form for the consensually monitored telephone calls that Mr. Bishop filled out.

Again, during the course of these consensually monitored telephone calls the defendant acknowledged having vaginal intercourse with [R.B.], and having touched [A.B.] in making a sexual contact with her. Following the description of the telephone conversations, the State’s Attorney proffered the testimony of A.B. and described the events that led up to, and the substance of, Bishop’s incriminating statements, which were subsequently suppressed by the Court of Special Appeals. The infusion of the later suppressed confession and the absence of the recording in evidence was further complicated by a comment by Bishop’s counsel: THE COURT: Any additions or corrections ... ? ¹⁴ [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, the defense would agree that the young ladies would testify as such. The only corrections is [sic] we would say that the audio tapes or CD’s of communications between Mr. Bishop and the young ladies, he did not acknowledge his guilt; but that does not obviously change any of this, your Honor.

No clarification by the State ensued, but the judge proceeded to find Bishop guilty: THE COURT: All right. Sufficient facts have been presented to justify entry of a guilty verdict to Counts 1 and 3. Presentence investigation is ordered. Subsequently, Bishop was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the two counts of sexual abuse of a minor, with all but twelve years suspended, to be followed by five years of supervised probation.

He also was required to register as a sex offender and to have no contact with the victims. How we characterize what happened in the proceeding, coupled with the agreement, is the gravamen of the parties’ dispute. According to Bishop and the State, Bruno v. State, 332 Md. 673 , 632 A.2d 1192 (1993), is the dispositive case for determining whether harmless error applies when evidence is suppressed on appeal after a proceeding in which a defendant is found guilty based upon the State’s proffer of evidence. In Bruno , we affirmed a conviction in which the parties proceeded by way of stipulated evidence that included, among other things, three incriminating statements by the Defendant, two of which were later found inadmissible but which we determined to be immaterial in relation to the admissible statement.

Id. Bishop argues that Bruno stands for the proposition that harmless error applies only when the evidence suppressed is not material, and that, in the present case, the suppressed evidence, Bishop’s confession, was the “linchpin” of the State’s case, thus making Bruno inapposite. The State, on the other hand, argues that the admission of the confession was harmless, because Bishop was convicted based on overwhelming evidence of guilt, which included, notwith ¹⁵ standing the suppressed evidence, the proffered testimony of R.B. and A.B. and a telephone conversation in which Bishop purportedly admitted to sexually abusing R.B. and A.B. Both Bishop and the State concede that the evidence was sufficient to convict Bishop; they differ in the application of harmless error. 4 The complexity of the conundrum presented in this case, exacerbated by the fact that defense counsel appeared, at the end of the colloquy, to contest a piece of the State’s evidentiary foundation without any attempt of clarification by the State, involves an agreement that claimed to be a “NOT GUILTY, AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS PLEA,” wherein a “no appeal” provision has been excised, and an abbreviated trial in which Bishop pled “not guilty” but conceded that the State had “sufficient evidence” to convict. So, before we can even ¹⁶ entertain whether harmless error applies in this case, our task involves first determining what happened and whether the Bruno analysis applies.

When facing criminal charges, an individual has various choices of pleas. An accused can plead not guilty and go to trial before a judge or a jury, or he or she may plead guilty and relieve the State of having to bear its burden of proof. The defendant also could plead nolo contendere or take an Alford plea, two pleas that are akin to a guilty plea but have different ramifications. In the federal system, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, there is also what is called a conditional guilty plea; we have nothing in the Maryland Rules that embodies that procedure, 5 although what has evolved appears to be something akin to a hybrid plea, whereby the accused pleads not guilty, forgoes a full trial and proceeds on an agreed statement of facts or stipulated evidence to preserve appeal on a suppression issue.

Maryland Rule 4-242(a) expressly provides that “[a] defendant may plead not guilty” in a criminal trial, under which an individual retains, inter alia, his or her right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to a trial by jury. With a plea of not guilty, an accused forces the State to shoulder its burden of proof, see F. Bailey & K. Fishman, Criminal Trial Techniques § 31:7 (2009), and retains appellate rights. See Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl. Vol.), Section 12-301 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. ¹⁷ Conversely, pursuant to Rule 4-242(a), an individual may plead guilty.

A guilty plea is an unconditional confession of guilt, under which a judge must adhere to the dictates of Rule 4-242(c), which requires the following colloquy: (c) Plea of guilty. The court may not accept a plea of guilty until after an examination of the defendant on the record in open court conducted by the court, the State’s Attorney, the attorney for the defendant, or any combination thereof, the court determines and announces on the record that (1) the defendant is pleading voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea; and (2) there is a factual basis for the plea. In addition, before accepting the plea, the court shall comply with section (e) of this Rule. The court may accept the plea of guilty even though the defendant does not admit guilt.

Upon refusal to accept a plea of guilty, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. In addition, the judge shall apprise the accused of the collateral consequences of his or her guilty plea, pursuant to Rule 4-242(e), which provides: (e) Collateral consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court, the State’s Attorney, the attorney for the defendant, or any combination thereof shall advise the defendant (1) that by entering the plea, if the defendant is not a United States citizen, the defendant may face additional consequences of deportation, detention, or ineligibility for citizenship, (2) that by entering a plea to the offenses set out in Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11— 701, the defendant shall have to register with the defendant’s supervising authority as defined in Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11—701(i), and (3) that the defendant should consult with defense counsel if the defendant is represented and needs additional information concerning the potential consequences of the plea. The omission of advice concerning the collateral consequences of a plea does not itself mandate that the plea be declared invalid. ¹⁸ Appellate review is generally limited to the trial court’s adherence to Rule 4-242(c) and (e), which ensure that the accused entered his or her plea voluntarily and knowingly and with an understanding of the consequences of the plea; the convicted forfeits any right to a direct appeal with a guilty plea, Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl.

Vol), Section 12-302(e) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, and “ordinarily waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings.” Bruno, 332 Md. at 688-89 , 632 A.2d at 1200 . Rule 4-242 also permits the accused, with the consent of the court, to enter a plea of nolo contendere. See Rule 4-242(d). 6 Literally meaning “I do not wish to contend,” nolo contendere is a “plea by which the defendant does not contest or admit guilt.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1147, 1269 (9th ed. 2009). The judge need not confirm the factual basis for the plea but must determine that the defendant entered the plea voluntarily and with an understanding of the nature of the charges, Rule 4-242(d) (“The court may not accept the plea until after an examination of the defendant ... [in which it] determines and announces on the record that the defendant is pleading voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.”), as well as the collateral consequences of such a plea.

See Rule 4-242(e). Unlike a guilty plea, a nolo plea subsequently “does not estop the defendant to plead and prove his innocence in a civil ¹⁹ action.” Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451, 455 , 47 S.Ct. 127, 129 , 71 L.Ed. 347, 349 (1926). Like a guilty plea, once convicted, an accused waives the vast majority of appellate rights, as we noted in Cohen v. State: As in the case of the plea of guilty, ... a plea of nolo contendere waives all defenses other than that the indictment charges no offense, and the right to trial and incidental rights. The plea also waives all formal or nonjurisdictional defects or irregularities in the indictment or information or in prior proceedings....

Except under extraordinary circumstances, the plea of nolo contendere leaves open for review only the sufficiency of the indictment. 235 Md. 62, 68 , 200 A.2d 368, 371 (1964) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 844 , 85 S.Ct. 84 , 13 L.Ed.2d 49 (1964); see also id. at 69, 200 A.2d at 372 (“A plea of nolo contendere is an implied confession of guilt, and for the purposes of the case is equivalent to a plea of guilty.”), quoting United States v. Reisfeld, 188 F.Supp. 631, 632 (D.Md.1960). An Alford plea, moreover, “ ‘lies somewhere between a plea of guilty and a plea of nolo contendere Rudman v. Md. State Bd. of Physicians, 414 Md. 243, 260 , 994 A.2d 985, 994-95 (2010), quoting Mannan v. District of Columbia Bd. of Med., 558 A.2d 329, 336 (D.C.1989). Drawing its name from North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), such a plea is “a guilty plea containing a protestation of innocence.” Marshall v. State, 346 Md. 186 , 189 n. 2, 695 A.2d 184 , 185 n. 2 (1997), citing Pennington v. State, 308 Md. 727 , 728 n. 1, 521 A.2d 1216 , 1216 n. 1 (1987). As the Supreme Court noted in Alford : [W]hile most pleas of guilty consist of both a waiver of trial and an express admission of guilt, the latter element is not a constitutional requisite to the imposition of criminal penalty.

An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understanding^ consent to the imposition of a prison ²⁰ sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.[ 7 ] 400 U.S. at 37 , 91 S.Ct. at 167 , 27 L.Ed.2d at 171 . Like a guilty plea and nolo plea, the Alford plea waives challenges to adverse rulings on pretrial motions and all procedural objections, constitutional or otherwise, limiting appeals to jurisdictional defects and challenges based on the propriety of the trial court’s acceptance of the plea. See Ward v. State, 83 Md.App. 474, 480 , 575 A.2d 771, 773 (1990) (holding “that an Alford plea is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea ... and thus, judgments on Alford pleas are not subject to direct appeal”). Amidst the spectrum between not guilty pleas and guilty pleas, there exists the hybrid plea, one in which an individual retains the right to appellate review of evidence subject to a suppression motion but avoids going through the time and expense of a full trial.

By pleading not guilty and agreeing to the proffer of stipulated evidence or an agreed statement of facts, an individual, like with a guilty plea, waives a jury trial and the right to confront witnesses but retains appellate review of the suppression decision. Our Court and the Court of Special Appeals have, on several occasions, attempted to discern the difference between a case that proceeds on a not guilty plea on stipulated evidence or on an agreed statement of facts. This distinction apparently was explained initially in Barnes v. State, 31 Md.App. 25, 35 , 354 A.2d 499, 505-06 (1976), wherein Charles E. Orth, Jr., then-Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals, wrote: There is a distinction between an agreed statement of facts and evidence offered by way of stipulation. Under an ²¹ agreed statement of facts both [the] State and the defense agree as to the ultimate facts.

Then the facts are not in dispute, and there can be, by definition, no factual conflict. The trier of fact is not called upon to determine the facts as the agreement is to the truth of the ultimate facts themselves. There is no fact-finding function left to perform. To render judgment, the court simply applies the law to the facts agreed upon.

If there is agreement as to the facts,