Recent Development: Fuster v. State: An Indigent Petitioner is Not Entitled to Counsel for a Post Conviction Petition as the Decision is Within the Court's Discretion

Authors

Bradley T. Bald

Abstract

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Maryland Rule 4-707(b) does not entitle an indigent petitioner to counsel for purposes of a post conviction petition for DNA testing. Fuster v. State, 437 Md. 653, 657-58, 89 A.3d 1114, 1116 (2014). In addition, the court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider whether to appoint the petitioner counsel under under section 8-201 of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Code. Id. The court further held that the circuit court used the correct legal standard in ruling on the petition. Id. Finally, the court held that the petitioner failed to preserve for appellate review whether the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that the State conducted a reasonable search for the victim’s socks and shoes.

Recommended Citation

Bald, Bradley T. (2014) "Recent Development: Fuster v. State: An Indigent Petitioner is Not Entitled to Counsel for a Post Conviction Petition as the Decision is Within the Court's Discretion," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 45: No. 1, Article 7.
Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol45/iss1/7