concluding that “Maryland Rule 4-215 exists as a safeguard to the constitutional right to counsel, providing a precise ‘checklist’ that a judge must complete before a defendant’s waiver can be considered valid”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that “Maryland Rule 4-215 exists as a safeguard to the constitutional right to counsel, providing a precise ‘checklist’ that a judge must complete before a defendant’s waiver can be considered valid”
- holding that a new trial rather than a limited remand is required when a trial court fails to conduct a proper Md. Rule 4-215 waiver because the right to counsel is a fundamental constitutional protection
- asserting that “[t]he trial judge must give much more than a cursory consideration of the defendant’s explanation” (citation omitted)
- declaring that “[a]s the Supreme Court recognized in Faretta, supra, in addition to the right to counsel, an accused also has a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to waive counsel and proceed to trial pro se ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Broadwater v. State, 401 Md. 175 (2007)
Johnson, 355 Md. at 453, 735 A.2d at 1021. Johnson is easily distinguishable from the instant case.
The opinion
RODOWSKY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the judgment of the Court for the reasons set forth in Part III.B.4 of the Court’s opinion, namely, “that all of Johnson’s pre-trial circuit court appearances—rather than advising him of the possibility of waiver of counsel by inaction— instead may have led him to believe that, if he were unrepresented during later court appearances, he would not have to stand trial without counsel.” Johnson v. State, 355 Md. 420, 458, 735 A.2d 1003, 1024 (1999).
Judge RAKER has authorized me to state that she joins in the views expressed herein.