State v. Brazle

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Daughtry

    419 Md. 35 (Md. 2011)   Cited 92 times
    Holding a plea colloquy is deficient where the record reflects nothing more than defendant is represented by counsel and defendant generically discussed the plea with his attorney

    Our jurisprudence, in determining the validity of a guilty plea, has focused always on whether the defendant, based, on the totality of the circumstances, entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily. See, e.g., Metheny v. State, 359 Md. 576, 604 n. 18, 755 A.2d 1088, 1104 n. 18 (2000); State v. Brazle, 296 Md. 375, 383, 463 A.2d 798, 802 (1983); Priet, 289 Md. at 276, 424 A.2d at 354; Countess v. State, 286 Md. 444, 473, 408 A.2d 1302, 1317 (1979); Davis v. State, 278 Md. 103, 109, 361 A.2d 113, 116 (1976); Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 757 (1970). Employing the Henderson/Priet presumption in cases in which the only evidence proffered to show that a defendant is aware of the nature of the charges against him is the fact that he or she is represented by an attorney and that the defendant discussed the plea with his or her attorney undermines the purpose of a "totality of the circumstances test."

  2. Barnes v. State

    70 Md. App. 694 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that a "trial judge . . . [may not] improperly interject[] himself into the plea bargaining process as an active negotiator" as that "infringes] upon the function reserved to counsel in the adversary process"

    The voluntariness of a guilty plea "can be determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it." Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 757 (1970), quoted in State v. Brazle, 296 Md. 375, 383-84, 463 A.2d 798 (1983). Under this "totality of the circumstances" test, we conclude that the appellant's guilty pleas in this case were involuntary and that his convictions, consequently, must be reversed.

  3. Durbin v. State

    468 A.2d 145 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983)   Cited 9 times

    Therefore, what we said about them in Teasley still remains true. Since the judge below could have disregarded the guidelines entirely, we perceive no error in failing to advise Durbin of the possibility of their use. See State v. Brazle, 296 Md. 375, 384, 463 A.2d 798 (1983) (one intending to plead guilty need not be told court not bound to follow presentence recommendation of probation). Ch. 237, Laws of 1983, enacted a new Art. 27, ยง 643C(a) providing "[n]othing in this article may be construed to prohibit the use of judicial guidelines in setting sentences."

  4. Harris v. State

    306 Md. 344 (Md. 1986)   Cited 35 times
    Holding allocution provides defendant with opportunity to explain circumstances of the crime and his feelings regarding conduct, culpability, and sentencing without subjecting himself to cross-examination

    Harris replied, "Yes, sir." Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must determine, inter alia, that the plea is supported by a strong factual foundation. Md. Rule 731c (superseded July 1, 1984, without substantive change, by Rule 4-242(c)); State v. Brazle, 296 Md. 375, 382, 463 A.2d 798 (1983); Hudson v. State, 286 Md. 569, 595-96, 409 A.2d 692 (1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 128, 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980). At the second sentencing proceeding, the court permitted the State to introduce the statement over Harris's objection. Harris raises two challenges to the admissibility of the statement at the sentencing stage of the trial.

  5. Custer v. State

    86 Md. App. 196 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that defendant had an "absolute right to withdraw his plea" because at the time of attempted withdrawal there was no finding on the record of a factual basis for the plea

    After it was agreed that the trial would proceed on a guilty plea, defendant took the stand and the court conducted the guilty plea voir dire required by Md. Rule 4-242(c).See generally State v. Brazle, 296 Md. 375, 463 A.2d 798 (1983); Hudson v. State, 286 Md. 569, 409 A.2d 692 (1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 128, 66 L.Ed.2d 53 (1980). The defendant answered all of the voir dire questions in a way which suggested that he desired to plead guilty. The court then called upon the prosecutor to present a statement of the State's anticipated evidence.

  6. Hamlet v. State

    514 A.2d 492 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    The inquiry is, by nature, individual to each case: "the voluntariness of a guilty plea `can be determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.'" State v. Bragle, 296 Md. 375, 383-84, 463 A.2d 798 (1983), citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). See also State v. Priet, 289 Md. 267, 424 A.2d 349 (1981).