# Dawson v. State

> Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · March 1, 2007 · 172 Md. App. 633

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760758

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnnie Odell DAWSON v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** March 1, 2007
- **Citations:** 172 Md. App. 633; 917 A.2d 133; 2007 Md. App. LEXIS 18
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Murphy
- **Judges:** Murphy, Meredith, Rodowsky
- **Cited by:** 3 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/9760758

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- declining to address the issue of whether registration is a direct or collateral consequence of a conviction because appellate courts do not decide constitutional questions where the case can be decided on non-constitutional grounds

## Opinion text

Concurring & Dissenting Opinion by
MURPHY, C.J.
I agree that the judgment of the circuit court must be vacated. I would hold, however, that (1) appellant is entitled to withdraw his Alford plea, (2) the State is entitled to proceed against appellant as if no plea bargaining had occurred, and (3) if appellant is convicted, he must register as a sex offender. I would not ground this holding on either the federal or the Maryland Constitution, but rather on the language of Md. Rule 4-242.
In my opinion, Md. Rule 4-242 does not provide the trial court with “discretion” to deny the defendant’s motion to withdraw a plea of guilty when — as is the situation in the case at bar — the record shows that (1) “the consequences of the plea” include a requirement that the defendant register as a sex offender, (2) the defendant was not advised of that requirement during the open court proceeding in which the court determined that the defendant had “voluntarily” entered the guilty plea, (3) prior to the imposition of sentence, the defendant moves to “withdraw” the guilty plea, asserting that no such plea would ever have been entered if the defendant had been informed that the “registration” requirement was a mandatory consequence of the conviction, (4) the court finds that assertion to be true, and (5) the State is unable to establish that it has suffered any prejudice other than the *648 mere inconvenience associated with getting its witnesses back to the courthouse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760758. Public record. Not legal advice.