Moore v. State

WEANT, Judge. On 4 February 1987 appellant, Ronald Moore, pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to two counts of daytime housebreaking. He was examined on the record in open court pursuant to Md. Rule 4-242(c) in order to satisfy the court that his plea was voluntary and that he understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea. Appellant, however, was never advised that if he is convicted of another “crime of violence” in the future, the daytime housebreaking convictions would make him eligible for mandatory sentencing under Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 643B (1986 Supp.).

We granted leave to appeal to answer the question: “Was Appellant properly advised of the consequences of his guilty plea?” Appellant contends that the possible use of the present convictions as predicate convictions for sentencing him under § 643B in the future is a “consequence” of his guilty pleas that he must be made aware of under Md. Rule 4-242(c)(l) before the pleas can be accepted. We disagree. ⁵²⁶ Prior cases indicate that “consequences” is not to be read as broadly as appellant reads it. 1 Thus, the defendant must be made aware of the maximum sentence he can receive when pleading guilty. Bryant v. State, 47 Md.App. 551 , 424 A.2d 1115 (1981). But he need not be told that his conviction could cause him to be deported in a separate civil proceeding; Daley v. State, 61 Md.App. 486 , 487 A.2d 320 (1985) (per curiam); that the judge may use sentencing guidelines, Durbin v. State, 56 Md.App. 442 , 468 A.2d 145 (1983); the nature of a suspended sentence with probation, id.; or that he may be referred to Patuxent Institution for a potentially indefinite (at that time) period, Smith v. Director, 13 Md.App. 53 , 280 A.2d 910 (1971).

In Daley, supra, this Court recognized the distinction drawn by other courts between direct and collateral consequences of a guilty plea. Courts generally hold that for the plea to be accepted, the defendant must be made aware of the former, but not the latter. A consequence is considered direct only if “the result represents a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant’s punishment.” Daley, 61 Md.App. at 489 , 487 A.2d at 322 (quoting Cuthrell v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 475 F.2d 1364, 1366 (4th Cir., 1973)). Section 643B can be invoked only for a crime which is committed after the predicate convictions.

Garrett v. State, 59 Md.App. 97, 112 , 474 A.2d 931, 938 (1984). Thus, the convictions at issue could only be used as § 643B predicates against appellant if he were to commit a qualifying crime after he entered his guilty plea. This is not a definite,