Summary
This Supreme Court of Maryland opinion addresses whether trial counsel’s failure to consult with a defendant about filing a motion for modification of sentence constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. The Court holds that a defendant may establish deficient performance and prejudice by showing counsel failed to reasonably consult and that this deprived the defendant of the opportunity to have the motion considered, rejecting prior per se rules from Adams and Rich. The case is reversed and remanded to allow the defendant to file a belated motion for modification of sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant must prove he requested trial counsel to file a motion for modification of sentence to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Whether Maryland courts should adopt the Flores‑Ortega framework for ineffective‑assistance claims based on failure to file a motion for modification of sentence.
Holdings
- A defendant may establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to file a motion for modification of sentence without having requested the motion, if counsel’s failure to consult was unreasonable and caused prejudice.
- Maryland courts shall adopt the Flores‑Ortega framework, evaluating counsel’s duty to consult and prejudice on a case‑by‑case basis rather than applying a per‑se rule.
Key quotations
“[C]ounsel has a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with the defendant about an appeal when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing.”
“We overrule Adams and Rich.”
Factual background
Harry Davis, Jr. was convicted of second‑degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to 72 years, the top of the guideline range. After sentencing, trial counsel neither consulted Davis about filing a motion for modification of sentence nor filed such a motion. Davis later filed a post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Procedural history
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City sentenced Davis to 72 years. The post‑conviction court denied relief, holding counsel’s failure to file a motion was not per se deficient. The Appellate Court certified questions regarding the necessity of a defendant’s request and the applicability of the Flores‑Ortega framework. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari, heard the case, and reversed the circuit court.
Remand instructions
Grant the defendant the opportunity to file a belated motion for modification of sentence.