Maryland Court Expands Rights for People Seeking to Remove Criminal Convictions or Reduce Their Sentences
A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Maryland expands the circumstances where people with criminal convictions may ask the court to modify their sentences, including striking the conviction from their criminal record altogether. The recent case of Harry Davis, Jr. v. State of Maryland broadens the landscape for the way Maryland courts view ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to sentence modifications. This decision could impact many people who were never properly advised about their post-sentencing options and who suffer collateral consequences from their conviction, long after they have paid their debt to society.
Let’s break down what happened in this case, what the court decided, and what it means for Marylanders looking for a second chance.
What Was This Case About?
Harry Davis, Jr. was convicted in 2013 of murder and other serious crimes and sentenced to 72 years in prison. After sentencing, Mr. Davis’s attorney failed to consult with him about his right to ask the judge for a sentence reduction. Further, his attorney failed to file a motion for modification of sentence within 90 days after the sentencing, which would have given Mr. Davis up to five years to ask the court to modify the sentence in some way.
Years later, Davis filed a petition for postconviction relief. He argued that his lawyer’s failure to consult with him about the modification option amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, violating his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of Maryland agreed.
What Did the Court Decide?
The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled in favor of Davis. It held that:
A defendant can claim ineffective assistance of counsel if their lawyer fails to consult with them about filing a motion for modification of sentence—even if the defendant didn’t specifically ask for one.
In other words, if your lawyer didn’t talk to you about your right to ask for a sentence reduction or modification within the 90-day window after sentencing, that might be enough to reopen your to allow that motion to be filed. This also clears the way for people to ask the court to strike their conviction by granting them a probation before judgment and ultimately expunge the records.
This decision overturns earlier case law—specifically, cases like State v. Adams and Rich v. State—that required defendants to prove they asked their lawyer to file the motion in order to claim ineffective assistance. Now, the court says the focus should be on whether the lawyer was reasonable in failing to consult with their client—not on whether the defendant made a request.
Why Is This a Big Deal?
You could get your criminal record vacated entirely or your sentence reduced. Previously, many people lost the opportunity to ask for a sentence modification simply because:
Their attorney never brought it up.
They didn’t know they had the right to file.
They couldn’t prove they had asked their lawyer.
Now, under Davis, the burden shifts from what the defendant requested to what the attorney should have done. If your attorney didn’t talk to you at all about filing a modification, and you can show that you would have reasonably wanted one, the court may consider that ineffective assistance, allowing a belated hearing on a motion for modification or reduction of sentence.
What Must You Show?
According to the ruling, you must show two things:
Your lawyer didn’t consult with you about filing a motion for modification of sentence, and that failure was unreasonable under the circumstances.
You were harmed by that failure—meaning there’s a reasonable chance that if your lawyer had consulted you, you would have filed the motion.
This is based on the legal standard from a U.S. Supreme Court case, Strickland v. Washington, which Maryland courts must follow in ineffective assistance claims.
What Does This Mean for You?
If you—or someone you know—was convicted and sentenced in Maryland and never got the chance to ask for a sentence reduction, including striking the conviction altogether, this ruling might help.
You may be able to file a coram nobis or post-conviction petition arguing that your attorney failed to advise you about your rights. If successful, the court could allow you to file a belated motion for modification, even if the original 90-day deadline has long passed.
This could apply even if:
You never asked your lawyer to file the motion.
Your lawyer didn’t meet with you after sentencing.
Your conviction happened years ago.
What Doesn’t This Do?
This decision doesn’t guarantee a sentence reduction. It just gives people a second chance to have their case reviewed by the court if their attorney failed to properly advise them.
It also doesn’t apply to every case automatically. You’ll need to prove the facts—such as the lack of communication with your lawyer—and explain how you were affected.
Takeaway
Harry Davis, Jr. v. State of Maryland is a meaningful win for fairness in the criminal justice system. It recognizes that people shouldn’t lose their right to request reduction of sentence just because their attorney failed to have a basic conversation.
If you think this ruling might apply to your case—or a loved one’s—talk to a lawyer about filing for postconviction relief. This case is a reminder that sometimes the law changes, and with it, new opportunities for justice can emerge.
Attorney Morgan E. Leigh has helped multiple clients vacate prior convictions, including but not limited to burglary and drug offenses. Reach out to MEL Legal to discuss whether you may be eligible to seek a sentence reduction today.