Parren v. State

MOYLAN, Judge. The appellant, Marvin Parren, was originally tried and convicted by a Baltimore City jury on March 18, 1985, of assault with intent to murder and other related charges. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions. 309 Md. 260 , 523 A.2d 597 . Upon his retrial on July 28, 1987, he entered a guilty plea to the charges.

He subsequently filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief on the ground that ⁶⁴⁷ the guilty plea procedure was flawed. On June 5, 1990, following a hearing, his petition was denied. In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, on July 1, 1987, the appellant, James Brown, entered a guilty plea to two charges of armed robbery. He petitioned for post-conviction relief on the ground that the guilty plea procedure was flawed.

On July 27, 1990, following a hearing, his petition was denied. Both appellants applied for leave to appeal. In both cases, this Court granted the application for leave to appeal and placed the cases on the regular appeal docket. Because they involve a single legal issue, we now consolidate them for purposes of this opinion.

Both guilty pleas were, we now hold, invalid because of the failure of the court on each occasion to satisfy the strict requirements of Md.Rule 4-242(c), which provides, in pertinent part: “The court may accept a plea of guilty only after it determines, upon 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, that ... (2) there is a factual basis for the plea.” In State v. Thornton, 73 Md.App. 247 , 533 A.2d 951 (1987), Judge Alpert discussed at some length the requirement that the face of the record reflect, in more than conclusory terms, the factual basis for the plea, pointing out the close relationship between and common provenance of the Maryland Rule and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Judge Alpert concluded, at 73 Md.App. at 252 , 533 A.2d 951 : “[U]nder both federal and Maryland law, before the court may accept a guilty plea, it must determine on the record ... that a factual basis supports the plea.” The issue that concerns us in this case is the fullness of the factual basis supporting the plea. State v. Thornton, at 73 Md.App. 257 -258, 533 A.2d 951 , quotes with ⁶⁴⁸ approval from J.L. Barkai, “Accuracy Inquiry for all Felony And Misdemeanor Pleas; Voluntary Pleas But Innocent Defendants?”, 126 U.Pa.L.Rev. 88, in terms of how the factual basis for a plea is placed upon the face of the record and how detailed that factual basis must be: “Although the accused is typically interrogated by the judge, some courts allow the defense attorney or the prosecutor to conduct the questioning.

The testimony of these attorneys has also been accepted in some states as a source of the factual basis, provided the defendant is present. A prosecutor’s testimony usually consists of a summary of the evidence he expects to present at trial. This method of establishing a guilty plea’s accuracy has been limited at times, however, by requirements that a prosecutor supply concrete facts rather than merely assert that a factual basis exists, and that the truth of the evidence thus summarized be confirmed by the defendant.” Thornton then holds unequivocally, at 73 Md.App. at 258 , 533 A.2d 951 , that a full “statement of facts is indispensable” and that a mere conclusory statement that a factual basis for the guilty plea exists will not suffice: “We conclude that the statement of facts is indispensable to the court’s finding of voluntariness on the defendant’s part and to the court’s own determination that a factual basis supports the guilty plea. We hold that the omission of a statement of facts violates the essence of the due process protections afforded a criminal defendant.” In these cases, the requirement that a factual basis for the plea be set forth upon the record was not satisfied.

As to the guilty plea proceeding involving Marvin Parren, the following is the full extent of the record in terms of factual basis: “The Court: I have the court file which contains the complete transcript of the prior proceedings, all the discovery proceedings, all police reports, all offense reports, statement of charges, lab report, medical evaluation, and ⁶⁴⁹ testimony of prior proceedings, sent back to this court from the Court of Special Appeals, all these items being the statement of facts. Are there any additions or corrections from either side? Mr. Eaton: No additions or corrections. The Court: Mr. Parren, the court finds a factual basis for the guilty plea, and that