Boone v. State

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (GUILTY PLEA) BLOOM, Judge. On August 3, 1983, applicant, Daniel N. Boone, pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to a charge of assault and battery. Unhappy with the resulting sentence, he now seeks to have his guilty plea vacated. Prior to July 1 of this year, Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 12-301 would have permitted applicant to take a direct appeal from the judgment.

The General Assembly, however, via Ch. 295, Laws of 1983, has added a new subsection (e) to § 12-302 of that article. The statute now provides: (e) Section 12-301 does not permit an appeal from a final judgment entered following a plea of guilty in a circuit court. Review of such a judgment shall be sought by application for leave to appeal. To implement this change in the law, the Court of Appeals adopted Md.Rule 1096.

That rule directs that an application for leave to appeal from judgment entered on a guilty plea must be filed within thirty days from the entry of the judgment. Subsection a 2 mandates that the application “shall contain a concise statement of the reasons why the judgment should be reversed or modified, and shall include a list of the errors allegedly committed by the lower court.” ¹⁰ Since Rule 1096 has been only recently enacted, there are no prior decisions interpreting its requirements. Thus, it is necessary to examine the case law involving other rules with similar requirements. Rule BK46 concerns applications for leave to appeal from post conviction proceedings.

Such applications “shall contain a brief statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified.” Rule BK46. In interpreting that rule, this court has determined that bald allegations, made without adequate specification, afford no grounds for relief. Smith v. Warden, 4 Md.App. 550 , 243 A.2d 897 (1968); Hess v. State, 4 Md.App. 508, 243 A.2d 651 (1968); Ross v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 46, 227 A.2d 42 (1967); Norris v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 69 , 227 A.2d 248 (1967); Goetzke v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 3 , 226 A.2d 361 (1967). For example, in Hess v. State, supra, the applicant alleged, inter alia, that he had been “denied due process and equal protection of the laws.” Id. 4 Md.App. at 511, 243 A.2d 651 .

The court, in denying the application, characterized the claim as “a bald allegation of denial of constitutional rights without specification. It therefore affords no grounds for relief....” Id. at 515 , 243 A.2d 651 (citation omitted). Rule 1094, which formerly governed applications for leave to appeal in defective delinquency proceedings, also contains language which is highly similar to that contained in Rule 1096. “The application shall contain a concise statement of the reasons why the order should be reversed or modified, and shall include a list of the errors allegedly committed by the lower court.” Rule 1094 a 2(a). In Faulkner v. Director, 230 Md. 632 , 187 A.2d 473 (1963) the Court of Appeals was faced with an application pursuant to former Rule 894. 1 Among the contentions facing the Court were the following: ¹¹ 4.

Erroneous and prejudicial testimony was given by Dr. Harold M. Boslow with respect to my record of prior convictions. 5. The State’s Attorney made improper and