Court of Special Appeals of MarylandDec 5, 1972
16 Md. App. 382 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1972)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • Howard v. State

    In two recent cases we reiterated the rule that the record must show that the accused knew the maximum…

  • English v. State

    The record must also clearly show that the accused knew the length of the maximum sentence authorized to be…

3 Citing cases

No. 161, September Term, 1972.

Decided December 5, 1972.

PLEADING — Guilty Plea — Knowledge Of Maximum Sentence — Before A Plea Of Guilty Is Accepted The Record Must Not Only Clearly Show Compliance With Requirements Of Boykin, McCall And Williams But Must Also Demonstrate That Accused Knows The Length of Maximum Sentence That Trial Court Could Impose For The Offense Or Offenses — Record In This Case Does Not Show That Accused Was Advised Of The Possible Consequence Of Such A Plea. p. 383

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charles County (MITCHELL, J.).

David Lee Gant pleaded guilty to the charges against him and from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.

Judgment reversed. Case remanded for a new trial. Mandate to issue forthwith.

The cause was argued before ORTH, C.J., and MOYLAN and MENCHINE, JJ.

Arthur D. Condon for appellant.

James G. Klair, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, Mary Elizabeth Kurz, Assistant Attorney General, and John C. Hancock, State's Attorney for Charles County, on the brief, for appellee.

David Lee Gant has appealed his conviction and sentence after entry of a plea of guilty, upon the ground that the trial court in accepting the guilty plea did so without the required affirmative showing that it was intelligently and voluntarily made, and that waiver of federal constitutional rights of the accused was not affirmatively established of record. The record clearly shows that the trial judge carefully explained to the accused his constitutional right against compulsory self-incrimination; his right to trial by jury, and his right to be confronted by his accusers, as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 228, 23 L.Ed.2d 274. It also affirmatively appears that the plea of guilty was entered by the accused intelligently and voluntarily in all requirements enunciated in McCall v. State, 9 Md. App. 191, and Williams v. State, 10 Md. App. 570, but for the single exception that the accused was not advised of the possible consequence of such a plea.

This Court, speaking through Chief Judge Murphy, in Duvall v. State, 5 Md. App. 484, raised storm signals of warning in announcing to the trial courts that the record must make an affirmative showing "* * * particularly as to the length of the sentence that could be imposed upon him by the court." In Mathews v. State, 15 Md. App. 686, we traced the decisional history of Duvall v. State, supra, and reviewed every published opinion of this Court pertaining to a guilty plea, and at page 692 declared:

Cert. den. 9/19/72 Misc. No. 187, 1972 Term.

"Before a plea of guilty is accepted, the record should clearly show compliance with Boykin, McCall and Williams. It should also demonstrate that the accused knows the length of the maximum sentence that the trial court can impose for the offense or offenses."

We reiterate our holding in Mathews that these are inflexible requirements, the absence of any of which will require reversal.

Judgment reversed.

Case remanded for a new trial.

Mandate to issue forthwith.