Robinson v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Orth, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The application of Bernard William Robinson for leave to appeal from denial of relief under post conviction procedures is denied as to twenty of the twenty-one allegations raised in his amended petition. Relief as to all except the 5th and 14th allegations are denied for the reasons stated on the merits of each allegation by Judge Perry G. Bowen, Jr. presiding in the Circuit Court for Charles County in his opinion rendered orally and thereafter transcribed and made part of the record as a memorandum opinion. With reference to the fifth allegation—“Failure of assigned counsel to advise the Defendant of his right to appeal”—the applicant was tried and found guilty upon a plea of guilty on 23 March 1967.

At the time of his trial, Md. Rule 719b6, delineating the authority and duty of appointed counsel, read: “Such counsel shall also have authority to note an appeal to the Court ⁵⁹⁹ of Appeals, if so directed by the accused.” 1 Thus the applicant’s appointed counsel had no duty to advise him concerning his right to appeal and the allegation affords him no relief. In disposing of the allegation the hearing Judge said: “We do not believe that assigned counsel has the responsibility to advise a client who pleads guilty that he has a right to appeal.” Subsection 6 of § b of Rule 719 was rewritten effective 1 September 1967. While not applicable to the applicant as subsequent to his trial, it now provides, in relevant part, that the authority and duty of appointed counsel “shall continue in all respects from the date of such appointment until the imposition of sentence. Thereafter counsel shall advise the accused concerning his right to appeal ** * *.

If directed by the accused, counsel shall assist