# State v. Davis

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · June 30, 2010 · 415 Md. 22

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650492

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Maryland v. Maurice DAVIS
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** June 30, 2010
- **Citations:** 415 Md. 22; 997 A.2d 780; 2010 Md. LEXIS 271
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Murphy
- **Judges:** Adkins, Murphy
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650492

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding inquiry triggered where counsel proffered to the court that defendant in prior conversation indicated that he "[w]anted a jury trial and new counsel"
- noting that the request to discharge counsel triggering Md. Rule 4-215(e) can come from counsel as well as the defendant
- noting that the circuit court should “follow-up” with the defendant regarding any unclear Md. Rule 4-215(e) request

## Opinion text

MURPHY, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the holding that the Respondent is entitled to a new trial on the ground that he should have been allowed to explain why, at the instant he elected a jury trial, he wanted another lawyer to represent him at that trial. It is not unusual for a criminal defendant, who is unhappy with defense *37 counsel’s evaluation, to express a desire for representation by a different lawyer. A momentary wish for a different lawyer is, however, distinguishable from a considered decision to request that the trial court permit the defendant to discharge counsel. Whatever Md. Rule 4-215 requires of trial judges, that rule does not require that the trial judge permit the defendant to explain the reasons why, at some earlier point in time, the defendant wanted a different lawyer.
From my review of the record, it is clear to me that Respondent’s trial counsel was (1) speaking in the past tense when he told the Administrative Judge that, “[Respondent] didn’t like my evaluation. Wanted a jury trial and new counsel[,]” and (2) speaking in the present tense when he told the Administrative Judge that, “right now [it’s] my understanding [that Respondent] wants a trial in this matter.” Under these circumstances, if Respondent really wanted another lawyer to represent him at the jury trial, Respondent should have said so. The issue of whether Respondent is entitled to a new trial should be resolved in a post-conviction proceeding, rather than by appellate reversal on the basis of a “possible, albeit unclear, Rule 4-215(e) request.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650492. Public record. Not legal advice.