Opinion ID: 2298009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grandison's Counsel

Text: From his 1984 trial through 2007, Grandison changed attorneys multiple times, largely at his own initiative. During this period, he was represented by more than a dozen attorneys. In February 2007, his counsel of record were Gary E. Proctor and Michael E. Lawlor, each appointed by the Public Defender. In a letter to the Circuit Court on or about February 28, 2007, Grandison filed an ex parte motion to withdraw counsel of record. Grandison then wrote a letter to the Circuit Court on April 18, 2007, expressing his continued desire to proceed without appointed counsel. Proctor then wrote to the Circuit Court, saying he had spoken with the head of the Capital Division of the Office of the Public Defender. Proctor stated that, in the event he and Lawlor were discharged as counsel, the Public Defender would not appoint other counsel to represent Grandison. In response to this letter, Grandison wrote to the Circuit Court and said I do not want either Mr. Proctor or Mr. Lawlar [sic] to act in my behalf in any capacity, and will not accept either under any circumstances as standby counsel. The Circuit Court held a heading on July 3, 2007, to determine [1] whether or not the Court will allow ... Grandison to discharge counsel ... [2] whether or not the request to discharge counsel is meritorious... [and] [3] whether or not it's appropriate to appoint counsel or to request a public defender to proceed further with appointed counsel. The record reflects the following exchange between the court and Proctor: The Court: What is your position with respect to continuing to represent Mr. Grandison? Mr. Proctor: If Mr. GrandisonI've got enough clients that want my help, without forcing myself on someone who doesn't. I have no objection to Mr. Grandison's motion. I don't think there's cause. And in good [conscience], I can't stand in front of this Court and represent that I should have done things that I haven't. I think I've provided him with effective assistance throughout, but neither do I want to force myself on him, so I have no objection to his motion to fire me, basically. That's fine. The Court: Would you be prepared to continue if he agreed to allow you to continue? Mr. Proctor: Yes, I would. The Court: Are you prepared to prosecute the motions? Mr. Proctor: The motions I file, yes, andof which I think 90 percent will agree with the motions Mr. Grandison wants to file. We'll just lock heads over a few issues, I'm sure. But, you know, I believe in Mr. Grandison's right to counsel. I want him to have his day in court. If he withdraws his motion, I'll continue to represent him to the best of my ability. Lawlor testified: The truth of the matter is, is that Mr. Grandison's motions are ridiculous and frivolous and insulting, but it's his choice. It's his life. As Mr. Proctor said, I am not going to beg and plead to work in my office and not spend time with my wife and not work on my other cases to an individual who doesn't want my representation. I would stay. I will stay. I undertook the representation knowing what it entails. Grandison spoke as well: The Court: What else do you want to say in response to either something that Mr. Proctor said or Mr. Lawlor said? Do you want them to continue to represent you? Mr. Grandison: No, definitely not. The Court: Do you want to discharge them? Mr. Grandison: Yes, sir. Grandison was also advised that the public defender may not appoint additional counsel were he to discharge Proctor and Lawlor. In response, Grandison said, that's a bridge I'll have to cross, you know what I'm saying, when I get there. The State then said that Grandison had not shown good cause to discharge Proctor and Lawlor. The Court made its ruling: I will allow Mr. Grandison to discharge counsel, Mr. Proctor and Mr. [Lawlor]. The Court has fully and fairly considered the arguments and the pleadings and the correspondence. The Court finds that there is no meritorious reason for discharge of counsel, but will allow the same to occur. Grandison appeared again in Circuit Court, this time pro se, on September 5, 2008. At this hearing, Grandison said, I wish counsel, but also stated that he had requested counsel from the public defender's office and had not received a response. Grandison averred that he was prepared to represent himself on his request for an evidentiary hearing, and the Circuit Court heard his argument. The court denied the motion. When the hearing concluded, the court said: Given the nature of this case I'm willing to give you one more shot at getting counsel. I will tell you I think it's probably an exercise in futility based on my previous experience in eighteen years with Mr. Grandison, but I'm willing to allow him the opportunity to get counsel and continue this case for a short period of time. The Circuit Court also requested that Grandison submit a letter within sixty days advising the court about his efforts to secure counsel. On or about December 15, 2008, Grandison filed a pro se motion for appointment of counsel. At a hearing on June 30, 2009, Grandison had not secured counsel. At this hearing, the Court also mentioned: [T]he Court received a letter from Nancy Forster who is the Public Defender who indicated to the Court that the Public Defender would not provide counsel.... [quoting from letter:] I will not authorize the appointment of another attorney from the Office of the Public Defender to represent Mr. Grandison in any further proceeding. The Circuit Court continued the case for 120 days to afford Grandison the opportunity to find counsel, adding: if representation does not come forward within that ... period and there is not a reasonable request for a continuance from counsel who may enter an appearance for Mr. Grandison[,] whatever date we decide this case is going to be heard[,] the Court is not going to do anything further with respect to securing counsel. At a fourth hearing on April 26, 2010, the judge and Grandison discussed his various attempts to obtain counsel. Grandison mentioned he had sent letters to various attorneys suggested by the Circuit Court. Grandison had received a letter from the Death Penalty Representation Project, saying that group would be unable to represent him. The judge also stated that he had reached out to various pro bono practices at firms, without success. The judge indicated he had contacted several law professors in an attempt to procure counsel, also without success. After some discussion of a recently decided case, Office of the Public Defender v. State, 413 Md. 411, 993 A.2d 55 (2010) ( OPD ), the Circuit Court made the following ruling: [T]he Court is not persuaded that [ OPD ] requires the Court under the facts of this case to order the Public Defender to provide counsel for you, Mr. Grandison. And given the reasons that Ms. Forster[,] who was then the Public Defender[,] gave for declining to provide representation previously[,] the Court believes that the Rules and the case law do not require that counsel be appointed at State expense for these proceedings. And notwithstanding what I just said[,] the Court has ... on several occasions ... continued this case because the Court believes it's important that Mr. Grandison have representation if representation is available and willing to provide advice and counsel to him. The Court has made efforts beyond what I think is required of the Court in order to find representation for Mr. Grandison unsuccessfully. At trial twice the Court is aware[,] because I was at one of those trials[,] that Mr. Grandison[,] because of disagreements with his attorneys[,] discharged them and proceeded pro se. And, accordingly, the Court is going to deny the motion to appoint counsel. Now, what's interesting in looking back the last few days through these motions[;] most if not all of the motions that were filed[,] even though it's filed by counsel who may have been representing Mr. Grandison at the time[,] were his product. The Court is mindful of and respects Mr. Grandison's ability to understand and argue the issues. And once again the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.