Opinion ID: 2753120
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Postpone to Obtain Counsel

Text: “After there has been an express waiver [of the right to counsel], no postponement of a scheduled trial or hearing date will be granted to obtain counsel unless the court finds it is in the interest of justice to do so.” Md. R. 4-215(b). This Court has declined to “place limiting factors on the exercise of broad discretion ‘in the interest of justice[,]’” and instead has stated that the meaning of “the interest of justice” varies depending on each case’s “unique circumstances.” Jones, 403 Md. at 294, 941 A.2d at 1097-98 (citation and footnote omitted). Here, we conclude that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to postpone to obtain counsel because the trial court does not ask questions of a self-represented defendant who has expressly waived the right to counsel after being advised of the right to counsel under Maryland Rule 4-215(b) (Express Waiver of Counsel). Aside from relying on the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Howard offers no constitutional provision, statute, Maryland Rule, or holding of this Court—and we know of none—under which a trial court is required to question a self-represented defendant who has expressly waived the right to counsel before the trial court denies a motion to postpone to obtain counsel. Certainly, Maryland Rule 4-215(b) lacks such a requirement. We reject Howard’s contention that, under Jones, 403 Md. 267, 941 A.2d 1082, - 13 - before denying a motion to postpone to obtain counsel, a trial court is required to question a self-represented defendant who has expressly waived the right to counsel. In Jones, id. at 300, 272, 941 A.2d at 1101, 1085, this Court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a self-represented defendant’s motion to postpone to obtain counsel after the defendant expressly waived the right to counsel. The trial court “questioned [the defendant] extensively about both [a] discovery issue and the need for an attorney.” Id. at 299, 941 A.2d at 1101. Nowhere in Jones did this Court state that a trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion to postpone to obtain counsel because the trial court does not ask any questions of a self-represented defendant who has previously expressly waived the right to counsel. Indeed, in Jones, id. at 300, 941 A.2d at 1101, this Court simply stated: “We find it preferable that [] a [trial court] review all relevant and available facts when determining whether to grant or deny a postponement.” (Emphasis in original). By the time that a self-represented defendant requests a postponement to obtain counsel after having expressly waived the right to counsel, multiple procedural safeguards under Maryland Rule 4-215(b) have already protected the defendant. Specifically, under Maryland Rule 4-215(b),11 before accepting an express waiver of the right to counsel, a 11 Maryland Rule 4-215(b) states: If a defendant who is not represented by counsel indicates a desire to waive counsel, the court may not accept the waiver until after an examination of the defendant on the record conducted by the court, the State’s Attorney, or both, the court determines and announces on the record that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right to counsel. If the file or docket does not reflect compliance with section (a) of this Rule, the court shall comply with that section as part of the waiver inquiry. - 14 - trial court must “[m]ake certain that the defendant has received a copy of the charging document containing notice as to the right to counsel[,]” Md. R. 4-215(a)(1); “[i]nform the defendant of the right to counsel and of the importance of assistance of counsel[,]” Md. R. 4-215(a)(2); “[a]dvise the defendant of the nature of the charges in the charging document, and the allowable penalties, including mandatory penalties, if any[,]” Md. R. 4-215(a)(3); and, “[i]f trial is to be conducted on a subsequent date, advise the defendant that if the defendant appears for trial without counsel, the court could determine that the defendant waived counsel and proceed to trial with the defendant unrepresented by counsel.” Md. R. 4-215(a)(5). Here, in accepting Howard’s waiver of the right to counsel, the circuit court complied with Maryland Rule 4-215. The circuit court made certain that Howard had received a copy of the charging document containing notice as to the right to counsel; informed Howard of the right to counsel and the importance of assistance of counsel; and ensured that Howard was aware of the allowable penalties for the charges. Afterward, Howard expressly waived the right to counsel. Given that Howard had been properly advised of the right to counsel under Maryland Rule 4-215(b), the circuit court was under no obligation to question Howard further as to his desire to obtain counsel five days later. B. Motion to Postpone to Review Discovery Materials Here, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to postpone because Howard alleged that, within the previous week, the State had provided him with discovery materials. - 15 - In short, after discharging two lawyers and expressly waiving the right to counsel, Howard requested a postponement. Howard contends that the request for a postponement was based, in part, on his desire to review discovery materials. The State argues that Howard’s request for a postponement was limited to a request for counsel. Without addressing the accuracy of Howard’s contention, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Howard’s postponement request under either circumstance. As Howard’s counsel conceded at oral argument, the State complied with Maryland Rule 4-263 (Discovery in Circuit Court). The trial judge found that the State timely provided discovery to Howard’s counsel. As the State points out, Maryland Rule 4-263 does not require the State to reissue discovery materials to a self-represented defendant who has discharged counsel. By way of comparison, we observe that a trial court is under no obligation to grant a motion to postpone even when confronted with a discovery violation; i.e., under that circumstance, the trial court may exercise its discretion to fashion any remedy that it deems appropriate. See Md. R. 4-263(n) (“If at any time during the proceedings the court finds that a party has failed to comply with this Rule . . . , the court may order that party to permit the discovery of the matters not previously disclosed, . . . grant a reasonable continuance, . . . or enter any other order appropriate under the circumstances.”). Where there has been no violation of Maryland Rule 4-263, the trial court is under even less of an onus to grant a motion to postpone to review discovery materials. The record indicates that, far in advance of January 26, 2011 (the date on which Howard moved to postpone), Howard was on notice of this case’s complexity and - 16 - seriousness. On December 2, 2008, Howard was arraigned in the circuit court. At that time, Howard would have been advised of the nature of the charges pending against him—first-degree rape and first-degree sexual offense—and of the maximum penalty—imprisonment for life. On May 5, 2009, in the circuit court, Howard stated: “[T]hey took my DNA four times.” Clearly, as of May 5, 2009, Howard knew that this case involved DNA evidence. On October 27, 2010 (the date on which Howard discharged his second lawyer), the circuit court again advised Howard that the maximum penalty for first-degree rape and first-degree sexual offense was imprisonment for life. Thus, Howard was again made aware that he faced extremely serious charges. The record indicates that Howard was also made aware that discharging his second lawyer carried serious consequences. On October 27, 2010, the circuit court informed Howard of the importance of assistance of counsel, and informed Howard that trial would proceed as scheduled with Howard unrepresented by counsel if Howard discharged counsel and did not obtain new counsel. Thus, Howard knowingly and voluntarily decided to discharge his second lawyer even though he was aware that his case involved complex DNA evidence and that he could be convicted of an offense with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. We find no merit in Howard’s contention that the trial judge erred in failing to expressly find that a postponement would not have been in the interest of justice. In denying Howard’s motion to postpone, the trial judge observed that the case was “old,” that Howard had moved to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial, that discovery had been provided to Howard’s counsel, and that the court was “not - 17 - unconvinced” that Howard had not been “privy” to discovery, but that this was a consequence that Howard faced by discharging his lawyer. The trial judge also noted that Howard had discharged two lawyers. Although the trial judge did not state that it considered whether granting the postponement was in the interest of justice, the trial judge took into account factors such as the age of the case, motions to dismiss, and Howard’s discharge of counsel. Hence, the trial judge considered this case’s unique circumstances and denied the postponement request.12 Maryland Rule 4-215(b) does not require that, in denying a motion to postpone, a trial court expressly announce that a postponement would not be in the interest of justice. Under these circumstances, we are not at all convinced that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion to postpone to review discovery materials. See Md. R. 4-215(b); Kusi v. State, 438 Md. 362, 386, 91 A.3d 1192, 1205 (2014) (“A trial court [] abuses its discretion when[] no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court [] . . . or when the court acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (Ellipsis and last two alterations in original)). See also Jones, 403 Md. at 291, 941 A.2d at 1096 (“[A] discretionary ruling will generally not be deemed an abuse of discretion unless it is well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court or is beyond the fringe of what the reviewing court deems minimally acceptable.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 12 The trial judge denied Howard’s motion to postpone on January 26, 2011, and trial began on January 31, 2011—five days after the motion to postpone. Thus, Howard had the benefit of a five-day delay to review discovery materials and obtain new counsel. - 18 -