State v. Cox

Murphy, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On July 25, 1960 James Cox was indicted for murder. At his arraignment, at which he was represented by coun ²¹² sel, Cox pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity; he was promptly referred for mental examination. On December 8, 1960 the medical report was filed with the court.

The report concluded that Cox was not insane at the time of the crime. On February 28, 1961 the case was brought to trial before the court sitting without a jury under the pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. On the second day of trial, the medical report was admitted in evidence as an agreed exhibit. Thereafter, Cox, through counsel, withdrew his not guilty pleas and entered a plea of guilty.

On March 1, 1961 the court sentenced Cox to life imprisonment. On March 23, 1961 Cox wrote a letter to the court clerk in which he made a “plea” for “a new trial.” In the letter Cox stated that his constitutional rights had been violated at the trial because (a) he was tried without a jury contrary to the express direction given to his attorney, and (b) his counsel failed to subpoena witnesses on his behalf. Cox requested in his letter “that he be granted a new trial and that this trial be held before a jury,” affording him time to obtain witnesses before fixing the new trial date. Cox’s letter was received by the court clerk on March 27.

On the same day, he wrote Cox, stating that after conferring with the trial judge, he (the clerk) was directed to advise him that the three-day period for filing his motion for a new trial had expired and that his request was therefore denied. No order to enter an appeal was ever filed. Approximately eight years later, on January 31, 1969, Cox filed a petition under the Post Conviction Procedure Act alleging: (a) that he was not advised of the consequences of his guilty plea and was illegally induced to plead guilty when he was told by his trial counsel that unless he did so he would be sentencéd to death; (b) that he was denied his right to file a motion for a new trial and to appeal because ²¹³ he was never advised by counsel of such rights; (c) that he had unsuccessfully attempted to appeal by writing to the court clerk; (d) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (e) that trial counsel was incompetent; (f) that he was denied his right to a jury trial. A hearing was held on Cox’s petition before Judge Paul A. Dorf in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, at the conclusion of which, on June 25, 1969, the court held that Cox’s letter to the court clerk should have been treated by him as an order for appeal; that Cox had shown by his letter a clear intention to seek “a further determination of his case”; and that under the circumstances the clerk should have advised Cox on March 27 that if he wished to file an appeal, it could be done at that time.

It is not clear from the court’s opinion whether it concluded as a fact that counsel had failed to advise Cox of his right to appeal and/or the method for perfecting an appeal. It appears from the record, however, that at the time of the post conviction hearing, Cox’s trial counsel was residing in Colorado and did not appear as a witness. By affidavit he stated that he believed he advised Cox of the period for filing a motion for a new trial and of his right to appeal “and in all probability he told me not to proceed.”