Grandison v. State, 425 Md. 34

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals considered Anthony Grandison’s challenges to the denial of several post-conviction motions arising from his capital murder convictions and death sentences. The court held that Grandison had no right to appointed counsel during the collateral proceedings, exercised discretion to consider issues despite a defective appellate filing, and affirmed the circuit court’s denial and dismissal of his motions.

Holdings

1. A defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel for collateral motions filed after the criminal trial, direct appeal, and prior postconviction proceedings, including a motion to reopen postconviction proceedings under Maryland Criminal Procedure § 7-104.
2. Whether to require strict compliance with Maryland Rules 8-204 and 8-306 is discretionary; in this capital case, the court would consider Grandison's arguments despite his filing a notice of appeal rather than a properly captioned application for leave to appeal.
3. Grandison waived the jury-selection, sentencing-form, and reasonable-doubt-instruction claims by failing to raise them in prior proceedings and by failing to establish special circumstances excusing the omissions.
4. Crawford's Confrontation Clause rule need not be applied retroactively to Grandison's final conviction in Maryland postconviction proceedings.
5. The death sentence was not rendered illegal by defects in Maryland's former lethal-injection regulations or by the possibility that new regulations would be adopted after sentencing.
6. Grandison's death sentences were proper because the statutory aggravating circumstance applied when he employed Evans to commit the murders pursuant to an agreement for remuneration; the claim was also an impermissible attempt to relitigate previously decided sufficiency issues.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an indigent capital defendant has a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel for collateral motions filed years after trial, direct appeal, and prior postconviction proceedings.
2. Whether the court should dismiss several questions because Grandison filed a notice of appeal rather than an application for leave to appeal.
3. Whether the postconviction proceeding should be reopened to consider an allegedly racially discriminatory use of peremptory strikes.
4. Whether Crawford v. Washington applies retroactively in Maryland postconviction proceedings.
5. Whether pre-marked mitigating circumstances on the capital sentencing form warranted reopening postconviction proceedings.
6. Whether Grandison was entitled to resentencing or a belated appeal concerning a letter sent to the jury.
7. Whether the reasonable-doubt instruction at the 1984 trial was reviewable despite the failure to object.
8. Whether later execution-regulation issues rendered Grandison's death sentence illegal or violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
9. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying a new trial based on alleged perjury, suppressed evidence, undisclosed mental illness, or failure to bifurcate capital sentencing.
10. Whether the death sentence was illegal because the aggravating circumstance involved an agreement to hire another person to commit murder.

Disposition

affirmed