In Knox v. State, 404 Md. 76, 945 A.2d 638 (2008), the Court expressly considered the relationship between Rule 4-215 ("Waiver of counsel") and Rule 4-245 ("Subsequent offenders"). The defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances and possession of controlled dangerous substances. The State served Knox with a "'Revised Notice of Intent to Seek Enhanced Punishment for Subsequent Offender,'" notifying him that it was seeking enhanced punishment, "'as authorized by law,'" and listing his prior convictions. Id. at 79. However the notice did not specify the particular enhanced penalties. At his initial appearance, the court sought to advise Knox of his right to counsel. Id. at 79. After Knox's first attorney withdrew from the case, Knox appeared for trial without counsel. Id. at 79-80. Regarding the "'allowable penalties' advice required by Rule 4-215," the trial court stated that the charge of possession with intent to distribute "'carries a maximum penalty of incarceration of up to 20 years, a fine of up to $ 25,000 or both,'" and that possession of controlled dangerous substance, not marijuana, "'carries a maximum penalty of incarceration of up to four years, a fine of up to $ 25,000 or both,'" while possession of marijuana "'carries a maximum penalty of incarceration of up to one year, a fine of up to a thousand dollars, or both.'" Id. at 79-80. However, because Knox was a subsequent offender, he was actually subject to a ten year mandatory minimum period of incarceration, with parole limitations. Yet, the trial court did not advise him of the additional penalties to which he was exposed as a result of his subsequent offender status. Id. at 91. After determining that Knox waived his right to counsel, the trial court convicted him of the charges and sentenced him to twenty years incarceration. Id. at 80. On appeal, Knox argued that he did not validly waive his right to counsel because the trial court failed to advise him of the mandatory penalties he faced as a subsequent offender, as required by Rule 4-215. The Court of Appeals held, id. at 88: "'Allowable penalties, including mandatory penalties, if any,' as stated in Rule 4-215, includes notice of subsequent offender penalties." The Court reasoned: "Absent information as to mandatory or enhanced penalties, it could hardly be said that a defendant makes a knowing and voluntary decision to waive counsel with eyes open or with full knowledge of the ramification of the choice." Id. To satisfy Rule 4-215, said the Court, a trial court must "advise the defendant that if the defendant is a subsequent offender, that there may be enhanced penalties, and must recite the possible enhanced penalties." Id. at 89. Concluding that a defendant cannot effectively waive counsel without an "'apprehension . . . of the range of allowable penalties,'" Knox, 404 Md. at 91 , the Court said, id.: A defendant cannot have full understanding of the consequences of the waiver of counsel if the defendant is unaware of the more severe potential penalties because of prior convictions. A chilling effect, if any, is de minimis compared to the surprise at the end of the day when a defendant learns of the mandatory penalty, after trial and just before sentencing. Moreover, the fact that a defendant has prior convictions should not surprise the defendant and advice of enhanced penalties as a result of prior convictions could hardly chill an election to waive counsel and proceed pro se. A valid waiver of counsel presumes that defendant makes the decision "with eyes wide open." Of import here, the Court also said, id. at 88-89 : The purpose of Rule 4-245 is closely related to the purpose of Rule 4-215, but it does not substitute for Rule 4-215's requirement to inform a defendant of the penalties. We have stated that the purpose of Rule 4-245 is "to permit a realistic assessment of the consequences of defending the current offense at trial or pleading guilty." King v. State, 300 Md. 218, 229, 477 A.2d 768 (1984). Although Rule 4-245 is aimed at fully informing a defendant of the risks inherent at trial, it is not targeted towards the specific goal of insuring that a defendant understands the risks inherent in proceeding without counsel. Rule 4-245 only requires that the State's Attorney "serve a notice of the alleged prior conviction" on the defendant. In contrast, Rule 4-215 requires that the admonishments be given by a judge, even if they were given previously by the District Court Commissioner. Rule 4-245 cannot be a substitute for Rule 4-215 because it does not provide for advice from a judge or advice of the actual severity of the penalties a defendant may face as a result of a prior conviction. . . .