Bryant v. State

Couch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Harry Paul Bryant, Jr., the appellant, pleaded guilty to a charge of escape. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County accepted the plea and sentenced appellant to two years incarceration, consecutive to the time he was then serving. On appeal, appellant contends the record does not adequately demonstrate that he "entered his guilty plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.” We agree and shall vacate the judgment.

When appellant appeared before the court, he did so for the purpose of pleading guilty. The record shows the following to have taken place: "HARRY BRYANT, a witness of lawful age after first being duly sworn, deposes and says: CLERK: State your name and address. THE WITNESS: Harry Bryant. Maryland Correctional Training Center.

COURT: Do you understand, Mr. Bryant, that you’re here for trial on a charge of escaping from the correctional facility on May 24, 1979? DEFENDANT: Yes sir. COURT: And that your counsel has tendered a plea of guilty on your behalf? ⁵⁵³ DEFENDANT: Yes sir. COURT: First of all, has anyone made any promises or inducements to you other than what’s been said in court today, to cause you to plead guilty?

DEFENDANT: No sir. COURT: No one, anyone threaten or force you in any way to plead guilty? DEFENDANT: No sir. COURT: You understand that by pleading guilty, you waive a number of your constitutional rights?

DEFENDANT: Yes sir. COURT: Among them, you waive the right to a trial either by a jury or by the court. In a jury trial there would be twelve jurors elected from a larger number and all twelve would have to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You waive that and you also waive the right to a court trial in which a judge would hear the evidence and he would have to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you understand that you are waiving those rights? DEFENDANT: Yes sir. COURT: You also waive the right to require the state to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and to produce the witnesses that would testify against you, and the right of your attorney to cross examine them, do you understand? DEFENDANT: Yes sir.

COURT: And you waive the right to summons any witnesses on your own behalf? DEFENDANT: Yes sir. COURT: You also would have the right at a trial to testify or remain silent, whichever you decided to do, and if you remain silent, no inference of guilt would be drawn from the fact that you didn’t testify. You waive that right? ⁵⁵⁴ DEFENDANT: Yes sir.

COURT: Are you on any drugs or narcotics or anything like that today? DEFENDANT: No sir. COURT: And you understand that a plea of guilty is one of the highest forms of evidence for guilt? DEFENDANT: Yes sir.

COURT: And that’s what you want to do today? DEFENDANT: Yes sir. COURT: And you do so plead involuntarily? [sic] 1 DEFENDANT: Yes sir. COURT: Alright.

Unless counsel has some questions? MR. FORDHAM [Assistant State’s Attorney]: I have none. MISS CROCKER [Assistant Public Defender]: None.” "COURT: Alright.

I’ll approve the plea of guilty on the Statement of Fact, and the plea [sic] found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. Anything you want to say before disposition?” Appellant contends that this record is insufficient to demonstrate that he knew or was advised of the nature of the charge against him and thus is a violation of Md. Rule 731 c, which provides in pertinent part: "The Court may not accept a plea of guilty without first questioning the defendant on the record to determine that the plea is made voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.” ⁵⁵⁵ While it may be a close question whether the above colloquy is sufficient to satisfy the rule requirement relative to "the nature of the charge, 2 ” we believe it clearly shows a failure to explain "the consequences of the plea,” at least so far as the possible penalty is concerned, as required by the rule. In State v. Priet, 289 Md. 267 , 424 A.2d 349 (1981), the Court of Appeals made clear that while the trial judge is not required ritualistically