Kenneth Kelley v. William S. Bohrer, Warden, et al.

In a Maryland state court, Petitioner pled guilty to a 28-count indictment arising from a drunk driving accident. The indictment charged Petitioner with four distinct vehicular homicide crimes under Maryland law. The state court record showed that before Petitioner entered his plea, no one—not his counsel, not the court, nor the prosecution—explained to Petitioner the mens rea element, gross negligence, for the most serious vehicular homicide charge to which he pled. No other source explained this critical element. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) on the ground that his plea was not intelligent, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that this Court’s precedent did not require an explanation or understanding of the mens rea element of the most serious charge or the differences among the state vehicular homicide offenses. The question presented is: Does this Court’s clearly established precedent require an explanation and understanding of the elements of each charge to which a defendant pleads guilty for the plea to be valid?