Bhairava v. State (2025): Maryland Court Affirms Denial of Defense Postponement Request

The recent decision in Bhairava v. State, No. 1471, Sept. Term, 2023, slip op. at ___ (Md. App. Jan. 2, 2025) (unreported), examines a defendant’s right to insist on proceeding to trial against their counsel’s request for additional preparation time.

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the Circuit Court for Baltimore County’s denial of a motion to postpone the trial, holding that the defendant affirmatively waived appellate review by insisting on moving forward with the trial despite the counsel’s concerns.

Click here to download the full opinion.

Note: This opinion is unreported and may not be cited as precedent or persuasive authority under Maryland Rule 1-104.

---

Case Facts

Defendant:

Shiva Bhairava

Charges:

• First-degree assault
• Second-degree assault

Procedural History:

• On February 7, 2022, Bhairava was indicted on charges including first-degree rape, first-degree assault, and second-degree assault.
• From March 2022 to May 2023, multiple attorneys entered and withdrew appearances on Bhairava’s behalf.
• On May 2, 2023, Assistant Public Defender Janice Footman entered her appearance.
• On June 9, 2023, Footman filed a notice of intent to seek a postponement, citing inadequate preparation time.
• On June 12, 2023, at a pretrial hearing, Footman formally requested a postponement, arguing that she needed additional time to consult forensic experts regarding DNA evidence and to prepare for trial.

Mr. Bhairava objected to any postponement, repeatedly invoking his Hicks right and insisting that his trial proceed as scheduled.

The Circuit Court denied the postponement request, concluding that:

• Bhairava was competent and knowingly chose to proceed despite counsel’s concerns.
• Although Footman’s request was “well-grounded,” the defendant’s insistence on trial took precedence.

Verdict & Sentencing:

• The jury found Bhairava guilty of first and second-degree assault.
• He was acquitted of first-degree rape and related offenses.
• Bhairava subsequently appealed, arguing that the Circuit Court erred in denying his defense counsel’s motion for postponement.

---

Legal Question on Appeal

The primary issue before the Appellate Court of Maryland was:

Did the trial court err in denying defense counsel’s request for postponement when the defendant expressly insisted on proceeding to trial?

---

Understanding The Appellate Court of Maryland’s Legal Framework

Standard of Review

The Court applied the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the denial of a defense postponement request.

Citing Green v. State, 127 Md. App. 758, 769 (1999), the Court reaffirmed that a defendant acquiescing to a trial court’s ruling waives the right to appeal that issue. 

Additionally, the Court referenced the invited error doctrine, stating:

“Where a party invites the trial court to commit error, he cannot later cry foul on appeal.” State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 575 (2010).

---

Statutory Framework & The Right to a Speedy Trial (Hicks Rule)

Mr. Bhairava repeatedly invoked his right to a speedy trial under Maryland Rule 4-271, commonly known as the Hicks Rule.

Under Hicks, a trial must begin within 180 days of a defendant’s initial appearance unless a good cause postponement is granted.

The Circuit Court acknowledged Bhairava’s defense counsel’s concerns regarding preparation.

However, Bhairava’s insistence on proceeding to trial meant that postponement was not required to protect his constitutional rights.

---

The Appellate Court’s Legal Analysis

Key Holding:

Appellant Bhairava Waived His Right to Appeal.

The Court held that Bhairava had no basis for appeal because he clearly and repeatedly objected to a postponement and insisted on proceeding to trial.

Applying Green v. State, the Court reasoned:

• Defendants who acquiesce to a court’s ruling waive the right to challenge it on appeal.
• Because Bhairava actively resisted a postponement, he cannot later claim the denial was erroneous.

The Court further held that Bhairava “invited” any alleged error by urging the trial court to reject defense counsel’s request:

Quoting State v. Rich (2010), the Court emphasized: “Where a party invites the trial court to commit error, he cannot later cry foul on appeal.”

Even if Not Waived, The Denial Was Proper

The Court also ruled that even if Bhairava had not waived appellate review, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the postponement request, considering:

• Bhairava’s explicit insistence on proceeding to trial.
• His defense counsel acknowledged that she would attend the trial on the scheduled date if necessary.
• The State’s readiness to proceed.
• The trial court’s assessment that Bhairava was competent and made an informed decision.

Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and upheld the conviction.

---

Holding & Outcome

The Appellate Court of Maryland AFFIRMED the Circuit Court’s judgment, holding that:

• A defendant who insists on proceeding with trial despite ignoring their defense counsel’s recommendation for postponement waives their right to appeal a denied postponement request.
• Given the appellant’s competence and insistence on proceeding to trial despite his defense counsel’s request to postpone to better prepare, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying postponement.

Final Ruling:

“Because Mr. Bhairava clearly invited the court to reject defense counsel’s request for postponement, he cannot now cry foul.”

Bhairava was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

---

Practical Takeaways & Legal Impacts

For Defendants

• A defendant who insists on trial forfeits the ability to challenge a denied postponement on appeal.
• Waiving your legal representation’s concerns does NOT excuse inadequate defense preparation — but courts will not override a competent defendant’s decision.

For Defense Attorneys

• When a defendant insists on trial, attorneys must balance ethical obligations to ensure adequate representation.
• A formal record of concerns can protect against ineffective assistance of counsel claims in post-conviction proceedings.

For Maryland Courts

• Judges must carefully assess a defendant’s competency when rejecting a postponement request.
• The “invited error” doctrine bars appellate review when a defendant knowingly pushes forward with a trial.

---

Referenced Statutory Authority & Case Law

Maryland Rules Cited

• Maryland Rule 4-271 (Hicks Rule) (Speedy Trial Deadlines & Good Cause Postponements)

Maryland Case Law Cited

• Green v. State, 127 Md. App. 758, 769 (1999) (Acquiescence Waives Appellate Review)
• State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 575 (2010) (Invited Error Doctrine)

---

Implications & Future Considerations

• Should Maryland courts require an express written waiver from defendants who override counsel’s request for postponement?
• Could imposing a mandatory continuance period in serious felony cases prevent inadequate trial preparation?

Join the Conversation!

Share your thoughts in the comments below or email us at feedback@marylandlawblog.com.