Andrzejewski, Michael J. Jr v. State

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case No. C-02-CR-24-001394
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 184
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
MICHAEL JOHN ANDRZEJEWSKI, JR.
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 14, 2026
*This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis, nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of second degree
rape and related offenses, Michael John Andrzejewski, Jr., appellant, presents for our
review a single issue: 	whether the court erred “in denying [his] request to postpone his
sentencing so that he could hire a new attorney.” 	For the reasons that follow, we shall
affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
On March 6, 2025, Mr. Andrzejewski was convicted of the aforementioned
offenses. 	On March 21, 2025, the parties appeared for sentencing, and the following
colloquy occurred:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: 	Your Honor, before we proceed, Mr.
Andrzejewski has a pre-sentencing Motion that he would like to address the
Court regarding me representing him.
THE COURT: Okay.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: 	I’d like to fire my Public Defender and
hire a new one, if there’s any chance.
THE COURT: Okay.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: 	I have a paper right here for you if you
can look at it.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I have not seen that.
THE COURT: Okay. (Unintelligible) unfold that for me? Okay. Can
you give this to the State? And Ms. – well, let me first address – okay. Mr.
Andrzejewski, the way that the Public Defender’s Office works, is if you fire
[defense counsel], you cannot have another attorney from their office. Then
you will have to go forward representing yourself.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: I’m gonna hire a lawyer.
THE COURT: Let me suggest to you – no, sir, you’re not gonna hire
a lawyer, ‘cause today is the day. Right? Today is your sentencing hearing.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
2
If you wanted to hire an attorney, it was incumbent upon you to do that before
today.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: Well –
THE COURT: But you have not done that.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: – nobody let me know that, so –
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I –
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: Nobody told me nothin’.
THE COURT: Okay. You –
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: May I –
THE COURT: Well, I’m gonna tell him something first. You were
present when we set this date. You were here standing in the courtroom when
we set this date.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: I understand.
THE COURT: 	So you knew the sentencing was today. 	So I
understand that no one may have said if you wanna hire someone else. But
you knew your sentencing hearing was today. And you were either going to
go forward representing yourself, with representation of a private attorney
you hired, who was available today, or with [defense counsel].
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And Your Honor, just so that the record is
clear, I did go over with him prior to today’s sentencing in preparation for
today, and he told me that he wanted to hire private [c]ounsel, or he wanted
to fire me. And I told him that he can’t get another Public Defender. That
he would either need to fire me and do it on his own, or get a private attorney.
And I asked if that attorney – I asked who it was, and I wasn’t told who it
was, which is fine. And I said, “Will that attorney be there on Friday?” And
I think he said, “I don’t know.” So we have had this conversation. I’m –
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: 	She came up, like, late to see me. 	She
came up on Wednesday and tell me all this. (Unintelligible) –
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, I came Wednesday to talk to you about
sentencing today.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
3
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: 	– you know, about sentencing. 	But you
know, why didn’t she come early and everything else? That’s what I’m tryin’
to figure out.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Because I –
THE COURT: All right. Why did you not – if you wanted to find out
information –
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: I –
THE COURT: – why did you not contact your lawyer?
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: Your Honor, ma’am, I did not know about
everything like this. This is my first time goin’ to jury. I don’t know nothin’.
I’m slow and I have a disability. 	I don’t know nothin’. 	I’m sorry. 	And
everything. I am very sorry and everything, but I didn’t know what was all
goin’ on. And I seen one of my friends on a (unintelligible) I was on, they
said, “File for an appeal.” And I was like, “Is it easy?” And case manager’s
like, “You’re, like, a little bit too late for it, but –
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, you’re not.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: – we can see if we can.”
THE COURT: 	All right. So you can’t file an appeal until you are
sentenced. So you’re not too late to file an appeal.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: Okay.
THE COURT: 	But you are too late to get another lawyer, because
today is your sentencing day. And as I previously said, you were here when
we scheduled this sentencing day. 	Now, you have two options. 	You can
proceed representing yourself, or you can proceed with [defense counsel’s]
representation. So let me advise you that it would certainly be of assistance
to you to have representation in this matter. [Defense counsel], I’m sure, is
prepared to present whatever mitigation the two of you discussed at your
meeting.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
4
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: For the record, and to be clear, we were not
able to get to any substantive discussions because he didn’t want to have that
discussion with me. I would ask the Court, in an abundance of caution, to –
I know the State has their people here, to perhaps consider postponing the
sentencing for another couple of weeks. Let me get his private attorney that
he wants, just simply to make this cleaner for what sounds like it will be the
future, whether it’s post-trial issues that may arise.
THE COURT: All right. So since – well, let me ask you this. When
did you decide that you did not want to move forward with representation
from the Office of the Public Defender?
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: Pretty much when she, you know, gave up
on me up in here. Like the jury day.
THE COURT: Okay.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: But I’m sorry and everything else. But I
had discussed it out with my friends and my family to see what to do and
everything. I’m not very –
THE COURT: Okay. So you’ve known since the trial that you were
going to try to seek other representation.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: And my –
THE COURT: What efforts have you made to hire a private lawyer?
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: 	My friend Eddie (phonetic), he was
having the paperwork done and everything else. 	And he did all the
paperwork and everything.
THE COURT: Okay. He contacted some specific attorney?
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: That’s all I know from him, yes. I don’t
know who it is.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you know if he paid someone?
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: 	I don’t know what’s all goin’ on right
now.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
5
THE COURT: All right.
[MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI]: I’m so sorry about that.
THE COURT: 	Does State wanna be heard on the request for
postponement?
[PROSECUTOR]: 	Your Honor, the State is vehemently opposed to
postponing the sentencing today. Ms. [A.] traveled with family and friends
from New Jersey. They’ve traveled far for this day that was set in open court.
We’re ready to proceed today. I don’t have before me, I don’t know if there’s
any findings that the Court has to make to find good cause for this to happen,
but I certainly don’t think that that has been met in this instance. 	And it
sounds like substantive efforts, we have no idea if any have been made in
furtherance of [Mr. Andrzejewski] obtaining new counsel. 	So I certainly
don’t think there’s a reason to not go forward today.
* * *
[THE COURT:] So let me tell you this, Mr. Andrzejewski. I’m not
going to postpone your sentencing. So you need to decide. You can do it in
consultation with [defense counsel] if you choose to. 	You need to decide
whether or not you want to have her representation at the sentencing hearing.
It is going to happen today.
So your request for postponement is denied. 	You told me earlier in
this proceeding that you knew on the trial date, at the end of the trial, that
you intended to discharge [defense counsel]. 	You took no steps to do that
prior to today. 	You certainly could have requested a postponement of the
sentencing hearing before today. 	You did not do that. 	So we are moving
forward today.
Mr. Andrzejewski subsequently decided “to go forward with” defense counsel. Following
argument, the court imposed a term of imprisonment of twenty years, all but fifteen years
suspended, for second degree rape, and merged the remaining convictions.
Mr. Andrzejewski contends that because the court “fail[ed] to determine the reason
for [his] requested discharge before deciding whether dismissal should be allowed,” he was
“deprived . . . of his constitutional right to an attorney,” and hence, the court “erred in

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
6
denying [his] request to postpone . . . sentencing.” We disagree. The Supreme Court of
Maryland has stated that
[w]hen a defendant makes a request to discharge counsel at a time when Rule
4-215(e) does not apply strictly, the court must conduct an inquiry to assess
whether 	the defendant’s reason for 	dismissal of 	counsel justifies any
resulting disruption and rule on the request exercising broad discretion. The
court’s burden in making this inquiry is to provide the defendant the
opportunity to explain his or her reasons for making the request; in other
words, the court need not do any more than supply the forum in which the
defendant may tender this explanation.
If the court provides this opportunity, how to address the request is
left almost entirely to the court’s sound discretion. 	[T]he court should
consider six factors in exercising its discretion in this regard:
(1) the merit of the reason for discharge; (2) the quality of
counsel’s representation prior to the request; (3) the disruptive
effect, if any, that discharge would have on the proceedings;
(4) the timing of the request; (5) the complexity and stage of
the proceedings; and (6) any prior requests by the defendant to
discharge counsel.
All six of these factors, however, may be considered in a brief exchange
between the court and the defendant about the defendant’s reasons for
requesting the dismissal of defense counsel.
State v. Hardy, 415 Md. 612, 628-29 (2010) (internal citations, quotations, brackets, and
footnote omitted).
Here, Mr. Andrzejewski expressly informed the court that he wished to discharge
defense counsel because she “gave up on” Mr. Andrzejewski, that no one had informed
him prior to the hearing that he could hire a private attorney, and that he is “slow” and has
“a disability.” 	Defense counsel expressly informed the court that she had met with Mr.
Andrzejewski prior to the hearing and that he did not know which private attorney he would
retain or whether that attorney would appear for the hearing. 	Mr. Andrzejewski also

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
7
expressly informed the court that he did not know which “specific attorney” his “friend
Eddie” attempted to retain or whether that attorney had been paid, and the prosecutor
expressly informed the court that one or more witnesses had traveled from another state for
the hearing. There is no evidence that the court did not consider the substance and merit
of these statements. Also, the court explicitly considered the timing of the request and the
stage of the proceedings, noting that Mr. Andrzejewski “knew . . . at the end of . . . trial”
that he “intended to discharge” defense counsel, yet “took no steps to do that prior to” the
day of the hearing. From these circumstances, we conclude that Mr. Andrzejewski was not
deprived of his constitutional right to counsel, and the court did not err in denying his
request to postpone sentencing.
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR 	ANNE 	ARUNDEL 	COUNTY
AFFIRMED. 	COSTS 	TO 	BE 	PAID 	BY
APPELLANT.