Post Conviction
Maryland Post Conviction Lawyers
Petition for Post Conviction Relief
A post conviction in Maryland is different than a trial and different than an appeal. In a trial, the defendant is the one on trial. Did he do it? What do the facts indicate? In an appeal, the trial court judge is the one on trial. Did he make legally correct rulings? Would different rulings have changed the result of the trial?
In a post conviction, the defense counsel is the one on trial. Did the defense lawyer provide effective assistance of counsel or did the defense lawyer provide ineffective assistance of counsel?
We Want Every Client to Go Home. Many Have. Read the Testimonials. Call Us Now – 443-921-1100
Click Maryland post conviction information for more technical information.
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on Behalf of a State Inmate
After a state inmate has exhausted the state criminal collateral review mechanism, the inmate may file a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court, assuming the inmate is not procedurally defaulted. This means that the inmate must not have accumulated 365 days that the inmate could have filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, but did not, and must have exhausted all state remedies first, which, in Maryland, means a Petition for Post Conviction Relief, and an Application for Leave to Appeal. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is limited to those issues that the inmate presented to the state appellate courts, and the state post conviction court. The inmate may request a hearing, which is discretionary with the United States District Court, and is not usually granted.
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on Behalf of a Federal Inmate
For a federal inmate, the only criminal collateral review is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Potential issues include the issues that can be raised in a state criminal collateral review proceeding, such as (1) denial of effective assistance of trial counsel; (2) denial of effective assistance of appellate counsel; (3) prosecutorial or police misconduct in failing to provide exculpatory and impeachment evidence; and (4) imposition of an illegal sentence. In addition, under federal habeas corpus, the inmate may succeed by proving “actual innocence.” If a federal inmate is unsuccessful on a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the inmate’s appellate options are the same as those of a state inmate on a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, as explained above.
Motion to Reopen a Closed Post Conviction Proceeding
In 1995, the Maryland General Assembly reduced the two post conviction petition limit to only one post conviction petition. As somewhat of a compromise in the legislation, the 1995 statute helped inmates by creating a new procedural device to enable inmates to get back into court. That procedural device is known as the Motion to Reopen a Closed Post Conviction Proceeding. Based on the legislative history, it appears that there is no limit on the number of times that an inmate may file a Motion to Reopen a Closed Post Conviction Proceeding.
The 2002 case Stovall held:
We hold that a post conviction petitioner (1) is entitled to the effective assistance of post conviction counsel, and (2) has a right to reopen a post conviction proceeding by asserting facts that – if proven to be true at a subsequent hearing – establish that post conviction relief would have been granted but for the ineffective assistance of the petitioner’s post conviction counsel.
Thus, inmates may use a Motion to Reopen a Closed Post Conviction Proceeding to claim ineffective assistance of post conviction counsel.
Warnken, LLC handled the Stovall case and has handled numerous motion to reopen closed post conviction proceedings.
Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis
Persons who are not presently incarcerated, on parole, or on probation as the result of a criminal conviction, but who have a criminal conviction that was unlawfully obtained, cannot file for relief under the post conviction related statutes. Such a person may, however, be able to utilize the common law Writ of Error Coram Nobis to attack their conviction.
There are six qualifications for coram nobis relief, as follows: (1) the petitioner must not be incarcerated and not on parole or probation; (2) the grounds for challenging the criminal conviction must be of a constitutional, jurisdictional or fundamental character; (3) a presumption of regularity attaches to the criminal case, and the burden of proof is on the petitioner; (4) the petitioner must be suffering or facing significant collateral consequences from the conviction; (5) basic principles of waiver are applicable to issues raised in coram nobis proceedings; (6) one is not entitled to challenge a criminal conviction by a coram nobis proceeding if another statutory or common law remedy is available.
