State v. Northam

MURPHY, J. In the Circuit Court for Worcester County, a jury convicted Kendall I. Northam, Respondent, of second degree murder and first degree assault. The State’s case, which included evidence of post-arrest inculpatory statements that Respondent made to law enforcement officers and to two former cell mates, was sufficient to establish that he committed those offenses in the early morning hours of January 13, 2008. Respondent noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, and filed a brief in which he presented five questions for ¹⁹⁷ appellate review, 1 the first one being “[w]hether the trial court erred by not addressing [Respondent’s] discharge of counsel, as required by Maryland Rule 4—215(e)[?]” After the Court of Special Appeals held that Respondent was entitled to a new trial on the ground that the Circuit Court had failed to comply with the requirements of Maryland Rule' 4-215(e), the State filed a petition for writ of certiorari that presented the following question: Did the Court of Special Appeals misapply this Court’s precedent when it determined that a Maryland Rule 4-215(e) inquiry was required even though no one brought to the court’s attention in open court that the defendant had any desire to discharge his appointed public defender? We granted that petition. 415 Md. 337 , 1 A.3d 467 (2010).

For the reasons that follow, we hold that Respondent is not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the Circuit Court “violated Maryland [R]ule 4-215(e).” We shall therefore remand this case to the Court of Special Appeals, so that Court can address the merits of Respondent’s other arguments. Background I. Respondent was arrested on January 22, 2008, and was served with a District Court Statement of Charges on January 23, 2008. The District Court ordered that Respondent be held without bail, advised Respondent of his right to a preliminary ¹⁹⁸ hearing, and noted that Respondent requested a preliminary hearing. The District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for February 21, 2008, at 9:00 a.m.

On January 28, 2008, Assistant Public Defender W. Burton Anderson entered his appearance on Respondent’s behalf. Respondent was indicted on February 12, 2008. At all times relevant to the issue before us, he was incarcerated in the Worcester County Jail. On February 26, 2008, Respondent wrote the following letter to the Clerk of the Circuit Court: Feb 26, 2008 Dear Clerk of the Circuit Court I am dropping my public defender.

Due to ineffective Assistance of Counsel. He never asked me what happen [sic] in my case. My life and freedom is [sic] on the line. Im [sic] asking if [sic] you to provide me with a Probono [sic] Lawyer.

Thank You Kendall Northam On February 27, 2008, Respondent wrote a letter that he addressed to the District Court of Maryland. This letter was written on the front and back of a single piece of paper, and was received in damaged condition—the bottom portion of the paper had been tom. The following was written on the front of the paper: Feb 27, 2008 Hi my name is Kendall Irin Northam and I have a high profile case wich [sic] I don’t have anyone to represent me. The reason why I don’t have anyone to represent me for my case is because I felt as though my Public-Defender Burton Anderson[’]s assistance wasn’t benefiting [sic] me and he was maken [sic] decisions without my conscent [sic].

I was scheduled for a preliminary Hearing wich [sic] I requested on 2/21/08, and Burton Anderson waived my preliminary Behind my back without my conscent [sic]. [Also] I feel as though they droped [sic] the charges I deserved and indicted with a couple charges that I didn’t deserved [sic] do [sic] to my studies in the Law Library. Do [sic] to the police statement and the news broad-castings I also see alóte [sic] ¹⁹⁹ of technicals [sic] do [sic] to false imformation [sic]. I don’t have the money for this type of case, But I still would like an The following was written on the back of the paper: Im [sic] on requesting a Prelimary [sic] hearing and a Motion of Discovery and Im [sic] dropping my public defender and for a Probono [sic] Lawyer. The following transpired during a March 5, 2008 “APPEARANCE” hearing, at which the Honorable Theodore R. Eschenburg presided: THE COURT: Mr. Northam, the only reason you had to be in court today is because there hasn’t been any lawyer enter his or her appearance to represent you in this case.

It is my duty to advise you on the record which I’m now doing if you don’t have the money to hire a lawyer the public defender will represent you. Now, I did get a letter from you ... I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re asking, what are you asking for? THE COURT: ... [Y]ou say[, “]dropping my public defender for ineffective assistance of counsel, he never asked me what happened.

I’m asking you to provide me with a pro bono lawyer.[”] APPELLANT: (Nod in affirmative) THE COURT: And there’s another letter, it’s ripped off, I don’t know what happened there, but in any event— THE DEFENDANT: Pretty much telling you in detail— THE COURT: I don’t appoint pro bono lawyers, are you saying you don’t want Mr. Andersen to represent you? ... THE DEFENDANT: I mean, I don’t feel that—he didn’t even ask me what happened in my case, you feeling me? THE COURT: You haven’t been arrested that long, have you? THE DEFENDANT: A month, I mean, these are serious charges.

THE COURT: Real serious charges. ²⁰⁰ THE DEFENDANT: He needs to get my side of the story of everything that happened to investigate. THE COURT: I’m sure he’ll be more than happy to hear your side of the story. As a matter of fact, he will I know. He’s been a public defender a long time and handled a lot of murder cases.

THE DEFENDANT: I understand. MR. ANDERSON: If I may address the Court. Mr. Northam, we met at the Worcester County Detention Center probably within 10 days of your arrest.

And my intentions at that time were really just to come down, introduce myself to you, to meet you, to let you meet me, and the relationship that an attorney has with a client is ongoing and not a one time meeting. In assuming the responsibilities of your lawyer I will be meeting with you many, many times ... So whatever feelings you had about the inadequacy of our first introductory meeting I want to assure you that we will have an ongoing process as a client and lawyer THE COURT: All right. You understand the way this works is if for some reason, you have to have a reason that you don’t want Mr. Anderson to personally represent you[,] that he’s going to appoint somebody else from his office.

APPELLANT: I don’t want none of them to represent me. THE COURT: You don’t get to pick a dream team and have me appoint them. APPELLANT: I understand that, but I mean, there’s a difference between a public defender and a lawyer, right? THE COURT: No, in other words—I knew you were going to ask that, you want a real lawyer, right?

APPELLANT: Yeah, a real lawyer. THE COURT: Yeah, a real lawyer. Well, Mr. Anderson is a real lawyer ... Mr. Anderson is a lawyer who has tried more murder cases in this county than everybody else ²⁰¹ probably combined.

You better think about this one, I can tell you that ... I’ve advised you of your right to counsel ... If you and he still don’t see eye to eye I imagine he’ll appoint somebody else. You better think about it, it’s up to you though.

The following day, Mr. Anderson entered his appearance on Respondent’s behalf, and represented Respondent at a July 9, 2008 motions hearing at which the Honorable Thomas C. Groton, III, presided. The following transpired at the beginning of this hearing: THE PROSECUTOR: K-08-055. State versus Kendall Northam. Your Honor, it’s my understanding based on conversations with defense counsel yesterday that the issues he’s raising deal with the constitutionality of the interrogation of the Defendant as well as probable cause for the Defendant’s arrest.

THE COURT: All right. Is that correct, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.

And good morning. I’m here with the Defendant at the Court’s trial table, and we are prepared to proceed. THE COURT: Okay. On July 18, 2008, the Clerk of the Circuit Court filed a letter in which Respondent made the following statements: K-08-0055 To whom this may concern: I’m asking for a motion to have a change of venue do [sic] to circumstances below please Reply.

Deeply Concern Kendall I. Northam *My case has been publicized in the county I reside in on all the Local News Media and all the Local Newspapers. Therefore not allowing ability to receive a fair Constitutional trial. * Small community in which the incident occurred as conducted a prelimenary [sic] investigation which in there [sic] eyes convicts me without a fair trial. ²⁰² *Victims [sic] family and Community are asking for quick and prompt Resolution to this matter which will restrict my ability to defend myself and bring all the evidence abroad [sic]. Regardless of my race, gender, or ethnic belief I feel as a[sic] American citizen I have the right to be judge [sic] properly and be granted the ability not only the venue of my trial changed but the ability to be represented by a firm who has represented thereselves [sic] with Integerty [sic] and Justice. Although none of the papers that Respondent mailed to the Circuit Court included a certificate of service required by Md. Rule 1-323, the Clerk of the Circuit Court sent copies to the State’s Attorney and to the Court.

The record shows that the State’s “RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE” was filed on July 30, 2008, and the record includes an ORDER OF COURT signed and filed on July 31, 2008 in which Judge Groton ruled as follows: The Motion for Change of Venue, and response thereto having been duly read and considered, it is this 31st day of July, 2008 ORDERED that the Motion be, and hereby is DENIED. On September 4, 2008, the Clerk of the Circuit Court filed a Motion in which Respondent stated: September 1, 2008 In the Matter of * In the Kendall Irin Northam * Circuit Court * For For a Change of Venue * Worcester County * Case No: * 2S-K-08-000055 *My case has been publicized in all the Local Counties on all Local News Media and Local Newspapers. Therefore not allowing ability to receive a fair Constitutional Trial. *Small community in which the incident occurred as conducted a prelimenary [sic] investigation which in the eyes convicts me without a fair trial. ²⁰³ *Victims [sic] family and Community are asking for quick and prompt Resolution to this matter which will restrict my ability to defend myself and bring all evidence abroad [sic]. Regardless of my race, gender, or ethnic belief I feel as a [sic] American citizen I have the right to be judge [sic] properly and be granted the ability not only the venue of my trial changed but the ability to be represented by a Firm who has represented.

Thereselves [sic] with Integerty [sic] and Justice. My Lawyer[’]s filed are updated but he has made no contact with me and trial is set at Sept 24[.] I’m requesting a Court appointed attorney and Change of Venue. Deeply Concern Kendall I. Northam The docket entries show that this Motion was denied in a ruling filed on September 11, 2008. A pretrial hearing in Respondent’s case was held on September 12, 2008, with Judge Groton presiding.

The first issue discussed at this hearing involved one Mr. Johnson, a State’s