Blake v. State

1

WILLIAM SAMUEL BLAKE v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Misc. No. 2-2022

Maryland Supreme Court

August 29, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Argued: December 6, 2022

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No.: 112222006

Fader C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.

OPINION

BOOTH J.

I Introduction

William S. Blake^[1] was arrested by Baltimore City Police Officer Fabien Laronde^[2] on July 12, 2012, for distribution of heroin. Mr. Blake was searched incident to his arrest, and a bag containing 3.5 grams of heroin was found in his underwear. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Blake was indicted for distribution of heroin and related lesser charges by a Baltimore City grand jury.

Mr. Blake, by counsel, filed a motion to suppress the heroin found on his person. He contended that the recovery of the drugs was the result of an illegal strip search. A hearing was held at which Officer Laronde was the only witness. The court denied Mr. Blake's motion to suppress.

On October 17, 2013, Mr. Blake entered a plea of not guilty upon an agreed statement of facts, to one count of distribution of heroin, with the understanding that he would be found guilty by the court. The circuit court sentenced Mr. Blake to eight years' incarceration. Mr. Blake noted a timely appeal, and the Appellate Court of Maryland^[3] affirmed the circuit court's judgment in an unreported opinion. Blake v. State, No. 1804, Sept. Term 2014 (unreported) (Md. Ct. Spec. App., Sept. 4, 2014), cert. denied 441 Md. 62 (2014).

Mr. Blake filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in July 2015. Thereafter, he filed supplemental petitions through counsel. A post-conviction hearing was held in September 2020. The post-conviction court issued an opinion and order in October 2020 granting Mr. Blake the right to file a belated motion for modification of sentence and denying all other relief.

On November 30, 2020, Mr. Blake filed an application for leave to appeal the order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Thereafter, the Appellate Court of Maryland issued an order granting the application. After the parties submitted their briefs, the Appellate Court of Maryland certified the following questions of law to this Court pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-304, which we have slightly rephrased as follows:^[4]

1. Did the post-conviction court err by ruling that trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to compel production of the Internal Affairs Division files and other potential impeachment evidence regarding a State's witness prior to a pre-trial suppression hearing?

2. In the alternative, did the post-conviction court err by ruling that the State had not violated its Brady obligations by failing to disclose impeachment evidence regarding a State's witness?

We accepted the certification pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-304(c)(3) and issued a writ of certiorari that included the entire action.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we answer no to questions 1 and 2. We hold that Mr. Blake failed to prove that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to compel production of the Internal Affairs Division ("IAD") files. Based upon our independent appraisal of the record and undertaking the analysis required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984),^[5] we conclude that Mr. Blake failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel's failure to move to compel production of Officer Laronde's IAD files fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that his performance was therefore deficient. Additionally, even if Mr. Blake had established that his trial counsel's performance was deficient, he failed to demonstrate that the failure to move to compel the disclosure of these files prejudiced him. In other words, assuming trial counsel erred in failing to move to compel the disclosure of the IAD files, Mr. Blake failed to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's professional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Concerning our holding on question 2, given that the same legal standard applies to the prejudice prong when analyzing an ineffective assistance claim under Strickland and the materiality standard necessary to establish a Brady violation,^[6] we assume, without deciding, that the State was required to disclose impeachment evidence prior to the suppression hearing and determine that Mr. Blake failed to establish the Brady materiality standard for the same reasons that he failed to establish prejudice under Strickland. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

II Facts and Procedural Background

After entering a plea of not guilty upon an agreed statement of facts, Mr. Blake, through counsel, filed a motion to suppress the heroin found on his person. He contended that the recovery of the drugs was the result of an illegal strip search. Mr. Blake's attorney conceded that Officer Laronde had probable cause to arrest Mr. Blake. Therefore according to defense counsel, the sole issue to be resolved was whether the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in light of the place and manner of the search. Specifically, defense counsel argued that the search was unreasonable because it was conducted in public even though there were no exigent circumstances justifying an immediate search. The suppression hearing occurred on October 16, 2013. Officer Laronde was the sole witness at the suppression hearing. The relevant facts elicited at the hearing are not in dispute.

A. The Suppression Hearing

Officer Laronde, at that time a twelve-year veteran of the Baltimore City Police Department, testified that he had extensive training and experience as a narcotics officer. Without objection, the motions judge allowed the officer to testify as an expert in the "identification, packaging, and distribution" of controlled dangerous substances.

Officer Laronde testified that around noon on July 25, 2012, he was on foot and in uniform in a covert location. He observed a vehicle driven by Tavon Wilson pull in front of 5107 Williston Avenue in Baltimore City. Mr. Blake was a front seat passenger in the vehicle. Officer Laronde was familiar with both Mr. Blake and Mr. Wilson as individuals who previously sold narcotics in that area.

Officer Laronde observed Mr. Blake enter an apartment building and exit after approximately two minutes with a plastic bag of suspected narcotics. Mr. Blake reentered Mr. Wilson's vehicle, and, about five minutes later, a blue Saturn pulled up behind Mr. Wilson's vehicle. The Saturn was occupied by a man and a woman. Mr. Blake got out of Mr. Wilson's vehicle and went to the passenger side of the Saturn where he spoke to the female passenger. Officer Laronde observed Mr. Blake hand the woman "small objects" in exchange for currency before returning to Mr. Wilson's vehicle.

At that point, Officer Laronde, based on his training and experience, believed that he had just witnessed a narcotics transaction. Officer Laronde radioed his "arrest team" and provided descriptions of both vehicles. He instructed the officers to pull their car in front of Mr. Wilson's vehicle. When they did so, Officer Laronde left his covert location and approached Mr. Wilson's vehicle on foot. He asked Mr. Wilson for his keys, and Mr. Wilson complied.

Meanwhile, Officer Smith,^[7] another member of the arrest team, left to pursue the Saturn, which had driven away. Officer Smith stopped the Saturn and recovered from the waistband of the female passenger four gel caps of suspected heroin and a Ziploc bag of suspected cocaine. Officer Smith promptly radioed Officer Laronde and told him that he had found the gel caps of suspected heroin on the female passenger. Officer Laronde directed Officer Smith to seize the drugs.

Once the drugs had been seized from the female, Mr. Blake and Mr Wilson were handcuffed and arrested. Officer Laronde put Mr. Blake in handcuffs while Officer Benjamin Critzer did the same to Mr. Wilson. Officer Laronde conducted a pat down search of Mr. Blake. While Officer Laronde stood by, Officer Critzer searched Mr. Wilson's vehicle. No drugs were recovered as a result of the search. At that point, Officer Laronde decided to search Mr. Blake's person more carefully. Officer Laronde testified that he made the decision to conduct a more thorough search because no drugs were found in Mr. Wilson's vehicle, and no drugs were recovered during the pat down. From his training and experience, Officer Laronde knew that "people selling narcotics on the street . . . will attempt to hide drugs on them in all kinds of different places[,]" including under their testicles. With that in mind, Officer Laronde positioned himself next to the opened driver's door of Mr. Wilson's vehicle. The windows of Mr. Wilson's vehicle were "illegally tinted" a dark color. He placed Mr. Blake between the driver's door and himself, creating a "triangle" for safety and privacy purposes. He testified that no one was out on the street when he began the search. With Mr. Blake facing him, Officer Laronde pulled Mr. Blake's waistband toward him and looked down the front of his pants but did not see anything. Seeing nothing, Officer Laronde asked Mr. Blake to turn around, and when he did, he noticed Mr. Blake move unnaturally, as if he had something "between his butt cheeks" or legs. Officer Laronde pulled the back of Mr. Blake's pants out to see if he could see anything in Mr. Blake's pants, and when he could not see anything, Officer Laronde asked Mr. Blake to squat down. When Mr. Blake squatted, "a large plastic bag fell into his underwear." Officer Laronde recovered the bag and placed it in a separate evidence bag. The bag...