Scott v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Bruñe, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. James Andrew Scott, the applicant for leave to appeal, was denied relief by Judge Evans on an application filed under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act. He was sentenced by Judge Michaelson in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to eighteen years imprisonment for murder in the second degree. By the present proceeding Scott seeks his release or a belated appeal.

In connection with the latter he seeks a copy of the transcript of the record of his trial. Scott was tried before Judge Michaelson and a jury in the above Court on January 31, 1958, on an indictment charging murder. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree. Scott filed a motion for a new trial, and sentence (which would necessarily have been either death or life imprisonment if the verdict of first degree murder had stood) was suspended.

Judge Michaelson granted the motion for a new trial on February 8, 1958. Immediately thereafter—apparently pursuant to arrangements between the State and defense trial counsel—further proceedings were had to dispose of the case that day. Scott was present throughout those proceedings (and, it would seem, at the time when the Judge ruled on the motion for a new trial). Scott was informed by his counsel prior to these proceedings of the effort to work out an agreement under which Scott would plead ⁶⁶⁹ guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree and the State would accept such a plea.

Scott was rearraigned at the start of the proceedings following the granting of his motion for a new trial. He entered a plea of guilty of murder in the second degree. The Judge then stated to Scott {inter alia) that the Court had “determined that the jury’s verdict was perhaps an extreme verdict under all the evidence in the case, and it has granted you a new trial.” The Judge went on to say: “And now you’re being asked to plead to the same charge in order to determine whether you’re guilty or not guilty. You say to the Court that your plea is that you plead guilty to the murder in the second degree, is that correct?” To this Scott replied, “Yes, sir.” Scott was then handed a paper as to which he was questioned by his counsel and which he read and signed.

This document was offered in evidence at the Post Conviction hearing. Its substance as stated by the State’s Attorney is included in the transcript, but no copy of the paper itself is so included. It appears that by this document (1) Scott waived a jury trial and elected to be tried by the Court sitting without a jury, (2) he authorized his counsel to agree with the State’s Attorney that the record of the proceedings in the first trial both for the State and in his own behalf be introduced in evidence at his trial on February 8th, and (3) he repeated his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree. Furthermore, a transcript of what took place at the arraignment and subsequent proceedings on February 8th, 1958, contains an oral statement by Scott’s trial counsel of like import.

It also shows an express oral waiver of the right to be tried again before a jury and an election to be tried before the Court. The Judge, who had heard the case when tried with a jury only a few days before and who had just ruled on the motion for a new trial, then made a finding of