Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.
By
Jasmine Milbourne
, Jane Cox - June 11, 2025
Daily Stories
|
Homicides
|
A decade after pleading guilty, Michael Small, 57, claimed his original defense counsel neglected to inform him of a deadline to file a motion for a reduced sentence. Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Paul J. Cucuzzella presided over the June 10 post-conviction hearing.
On April 27, 2014, Small reportedly walked into a Baltimore Police Department (BPD) police station in clear mental distress and wrote, “I think I killed someone,” on a Post-it note. Later, police overheard him repeating this while on the phone.
He gave police an address, where they found Bonita Anderson, 42, dead of asphyxiation, with defensive wounds and Small’s DNA said to be present on her body.
Small stated the two were spending time together when a verbal argument began, which resulted in Anderson “snatching” eight dollars from him, followed by a “tussle” that resulted in her death, although he never directly admitted to strangling her. Immediately after the incident occurred, he walked to the police station to turn himself in.
Throughout the process of charging, conviction and sentencing, Small displayed extreme remorse, to the degree that one police officer described the case as “the strangest murder” they had ever witnessed.
Small also reportedly suffered severe mental health struggles, including schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder mentioned in the original sentencing documents. Charging documents also note that Small was on medication for these issues. Extreme remorse and severe mental health troubles were considered mitigating circumstances at the time.
On Jan. 22, 2015, Small pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 25 years.
Nayda Kuachusri, Small’s new defense attorney, argued that Small was not given adequate counsel since he was not informed about some of his post-trial rights – namely, the right to file a motion for a sentence modification within 90 days of his sentencing. Small was allegedly unaware of both this fact and the fact that the court has five years to follow up on such a motion.
Small took the stand telling Judge Cucuzzella he was unaware of this rule at the time of his conviction. He also stated that he asked his attorney at the time about filing a motion to modify, but was never informed of a deadline.
A motion for modification is a formal request to the court to change a previous order or ruling. In the State of Maryland, the court has the power to revise the ruling within five years of sentencing.
Kuachusri brought up case law from Franklin v. State, which outlined that counsel must inform their clients of all post-trial rights, hearings and filing deadlines. Under this ruling, Small’s case was made and deliberated.
Although prosecution agreed on the circumstances of Small’s argument, they challenged the idea that they could judge a past decision based on modern standards.
Judge Cucuzzella has yet to file a ruling in this case.