State of Maryland v. Robert Clifford Weddington, 457 Md. 589

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that two letters expressing Robert Weddington’s dissatisfaction with appointed counsel triggered Maryland Rule 4-215(e), even though the trial judge did not become aware of the letters until after trial. The court further held that Weddington did not waive his right to request discharge of counsel by failing to repeat his request orally or in open court, and that post-trial hearings did not cure the violation.

Holdings

1. Weddington's November 24 and January 20 letters were clear requests to discharge counsel and triggered Maryland Rule 4-215(e) when they were received and handled by the Circuit Court before trial.
2. Weddington did not waive his Rule 4-215(e) request by failing to bring the letters or his dissatisfaction orally or in open court to the trial judge before or during trial.
3. The post-trial hearings did not cure the Circuit Court's failure to conduct a timely Rule 4-215(e) inquiry, and the violation constituted reversible error requiring new trials.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Weddington's letters expressing dissatisfaction with counsel triggered Maryland Rule 4-215(e) when the Circuit Court clerk's office received them before trial but the trial judge did not become aware of them until after trial.
2. Whether Weddington waived his Rule 4-215(e) request by failing to repeat his dissatisfaction orally or in open court before or during trial.
3. Whether post-trial Rule 4-215(e) hearings rendered harmless the Circuit Court's failure to conduct a timely pretrial inquiry.

Disposition

affirmed