Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case Nos. 18120316; 18120317
Wright, Beachley, Wilner, Alan M. (Senior Judge, Specially
Assigned), JJ.
OPINION
BEACHLEY, J.
On
October 25, 2016, appellant Wendell Griffin filed a Petition
for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and Request for Hearing in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, seeking to vacate his 1982
convictions for first-degree murder and openly carrying a
deadly weapon. The circuit court held a hearing on
appellant's petition on November 15, 2017. In an opinion
and order dated April 3, 2018, the circuit court denied
appellant's petition. Appellant timely appealed, and
presents two issues for our review, [1] which we have rephrased as
follows:
1. Does the inability to file a civil claim in federal court
constitute a significant collateral consequence for purposes
of coram nobis relief?
2. Did appellant waive his right to seek coram nobis
relief?
We hold
that appellant's inability to file a civil rights claim
does not satisfy the "significant collateral
consequences" element required for coram nobis
relief. In the alternative, we hold that appellant waived the
grounds underlying his coram nobis petition.
Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On
March 8, 1982, a jury convicted appellant of the first-degree
murder of James Wise, III, and of openly carrying a deadly
weapon with intent to injure. Appellant received a life
sentence for first-degree murder, and a consecutive sentence
of three years for the weapon conviction. A panel of this
Court affirmed appellant's convictions in an unreported
opinion, and the Court of Appeals denied appellant's
petition for certiorari. Several years later, in the 1990s,
appellant unsuccessfully sought both Maryland state
post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City and federal habeas corpus relief in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.[2]
On June
10, 2010, appellant filed a pro se petition seeking
post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Md. Code (2001, 2008
Repl. Vol.), § 8-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article
("CP").[3] Pursuant to that filing, appellant,
through counsel, requested documents from the Baltimore
Police Department ("BPD") regarding its
investigation of appellant for the murder of Mr. Wise. As a
result of that document request, in 2011 appellant learned
that the BPD had withheld exculpatory evidence consisting of
photo arrays, witness statements, and chain of custody
documents. On February 2, 2012, appellant filed a motion for
leave to reopen his post-conviction case, seeking
post-conviction relief based on the newly discovered
evidence. Four days later, he filed a petition for writ of
actual innocence pursuant to CP § 8-301.[4] Both petitions
alleged that the State had committed numerous
Brady[5] violations.
The
parties appeared in the circuit court before Judge Gale E.
Rasin on May 23, 2012, for a hearing on the two petitions.
Prior to the court ruling on the merits of the Brady
violations, however, the parties reached an agreement whereby
appellant would withdraw his claims in consideration for a
time-served sentence. The State told the court,
[T]he State is not convinced that there were, in fact, any
Brady violations. And if the State were convinced
the State ethically would be bound to concede to the granting
of a new trial. The State does recognize that the
Brady allegations are plausible enough that . . .
after discussing the matters with both [appellant] through
his attorney, the State and [appellant] have agreed to a --
the State will concede to a resentencing on this matter.
The
State went on to explain that the matter had "been
discussed" with "all levels of the State's
Attorney's Office," and that this particular course
of action would "ensure that [appellant]
for the rest of his life will remain convicted for the murder
of James Wise." (Emphasis added). Appellant's
counsel responded that appellant "maintain[ed] his
actual innocence of these convictions but [had]
agreed to this resolution in the interest of moving
forward and obtaining his freedom." (Emphasis
added). As we shall explain below, these expressed
considerations-the State's intent that appellant remain
convicted of James Wise's murder for the rest of his
life, and appellant's decision to accept a commuted
sentence rather than challenge the underlying convictions for
Brady violations-play an important role in resolving
this appeal.
On
November 13, 2013, nearly eighteen months after he was
released from prison, appellant filed a civil action in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988(b) against
the BPD and three BPD detectives.[6] The district court dismissed
appellant's complaint, ruling that it was barred pursuant
to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In
Heck, the Supreme Court held that,
in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called
into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages
bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that
has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under
§ 1983.
Id. at 486-87 (footnote omitted). As relevant here,
Heck required appellant to have his convictions
"declared invalid by a [Maryland] state tribunal"
before proceeding with his § 1983 action.
Appellant
appealed the district court's decision to the Fourth
Circuit. In Griffin v. Balt. Police
Dept., 804 F.3d 692, 699 (4th Cir. 2015), the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of appellant's claim. The
Fourth Circuit noted that Maryland provides "many
avenues of post-conviction relief[, ]" listing as
examples petitions for writ of error coram
nobis and for writ of actual innocence, procedures
which are in addition to direct appeals and collateral
review. Id. at 698. Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit
cautioned that "[appellant] may or may not qualify for
any or all of [those] remedies; that is for Maryland to
decide." Id.
Apparently
heeding the Fourth Circuit's suggestion, on October 25,
2016, appellant filed his petition for writ of error
coram nobis, which is the subject of this current
appeal. In the petition, appellant sought to vacate his
convictions based on the same Brady violations he
alleged in his 2012 petitions for post-conviction relief and
for writ of actual innocence. As previously noted, the
circuit court held a hearing on November 15, 2017. In its
memorandum opinion, the circuit court denied appellant's
petition, finding that he failed to establish that he was
suffering significant collateral consequences, and that
pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, he waived his right
to seek coram nobis relief. As stated above,
appellant timely appealed. We shall provide additional facts
as necessary.
DISCUSSION
The
Court of Appeals has noted that "[t]he essential nature
of the writ of coram nobis is that it is an
'extraordinary remedy' justified 'only under
circumstances compelling such action to achieve
justice.'" Hyman v. State, 463 Md.
656, 671 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
State v. Smith, 443 Md. 572, 597 (2015)). Explaining
its purpose, the Court has stated that the writ of coram
nobis
is "available to raise fundamental errors in attempting
to show that a criminal conviction was invalid under
circumstances where no other remedy is presently available
and where there were sound reasons for the failure to seek
relief earlier." Often, coram nobis relief is sought
"years after the fact":
Very often in a criminal case, because of a relatively light
sanction imposed or for some other reason, a defendant is
willing to forego [sic] an appeal even if errors of a
constitutional or fundamental nature may have occurred. Then,
when the defendant later learns of a substantial collateral
consequence of the conviction, it may be too late to appeal,
and, if the defendant is not incarcerated or on parole or
probation, he or she will not be able to challenge the
conviction by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or a
petition under the Post Conviction Procedure Act.
Id. (citation omitted) (quoting Smith, 443
Md. at 598).
Although
the Court of Appeals has described the writ of error
coram nobis as "an ancient common law
device," Smith, 443 Md. at 623, no Maryland
court had articulated the standard of appellate review until
State v. Rich, 454 Md. 448 (2017). There, for the
first time, the Court of Appeals held,
Because of the "extraordinary" nature of this
remedy, [the Court of Appeals] deem[s] it appropriate for
appellate courts to review the coram nobis
court's decision to grant or deny the petition for abuse
of discretion. However, in determining whether the ultimate
disposition of the coram nobis court constitutes an
abuse of discretion, appellate courts should not disturb the
coram nobis court's factual findings unless they
are clearly erroneous, while legal determinations shall be
reviewed de novo.
Id. at 470-71.
Turning
to the substantive requirements of the writ, a petitioner
must satisfy five conditions before a court may grant relief:
[1] "the grounds for challenging the criminal conviction
must be of a constitutional, jurisdictional, or fundamental
character"; [2] the petitioner has the burden to
overcome the "presumption of regularity" in the
criminal case; [3] "the coram nobis petitioner must be
suffering or facing significant collateral consequences from
the conviction"; [4] the issue must not be waived; and
[5] there may ...