Opinion ID: 2305941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Handgun Charges

Text: The Circuit Court failed to comply strictly with Rule 4-215(a)(3) when giving Brye conflicting and incorrect advisements of the penalties he faced for each of the handgun charges. The State charged Brye with use of a handgun in a crime of violence and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, both of which are violations of Maryland Code (2002 & Supp. 2008), Criminal Law Article § 4-204(a). [8] Section 4-204(b) states that the maximum possible penalty for a violation is twenty years, with a mandatory minimum of five years without the possibility of parole. [9] On 24 May 2006, at the arraignment hearing held over two months before trial, the court gave Brye (before trial counsel entered his appearance) the correct advisement for one handgun charge and an incorrect advisement for the other. The judge overstated the possible penalty for use of a handgun in a crime of violence as twenty-five years without parole. On 31 July 2006, on the morning of trial, when Brye first indicated his wish to discharge counsel, the administrative judge gave Brye conflicting and incorrect advice. The judge informed Brye that he was facing ten years without the possibility of parole and that Brye could get up to twenty-five years in this case[.] [10] This advisement grossly understated the potential penalties Brye faced. Brye could have received twenty-five years for the first degree assault alone. [11] He was exposed to an additional twenty years if convicted of a handgun violation. There is no indication in the record that defense counsel brought this error to his client's or the court's attention before exiting the case. Later that day, the trial judge advised Brye incorrectly that the maximum penalty for each of the handgun charges was five years without the possibility of parole. [12] Five years without the possibility of parole was the minimum sentence Brye could have received for a handgun violation. If he had been convicted of the handgun violation, Brye could have faced a maximum sentence of up to twenty years. Sifting through this litany of confusing and conflicting advisements, we have little confidence that Brye had a clear understanding of the nature of the charges, and their allowable penalties, when he waived his right to counsel. At his first appearance in the Circuit Court, over two months before trial, Brye was advised that he faced twenty years for one of the handgun violations, and twenty-five years for the other. At his next appearance, he was advised that he faced up to twenty-five years in this case. Finally, immediately before his trial commenced, Brye was advised by the trial judge that the maximum sentence he faced for a handgun violation was five years. While a layperson may be expected to comprehend accurate advisements given cumulatively at separate appearances, we draw the line at expecting a layperson to be able to discern which is the correct advisement from a series of conflicting and often incorrect advisements from different judges. On this record, Brye is not deemed by us as having effectively waive[d] counsel because these advisements did not give him a valid and clear basis from which `apprehension ... of the range of allowable penalties' may be inferred. Knox, 404 Md. at 91, 945 A.2d at 647 (quoting Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 724, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948)).