Edwards v. State

ANTHONY NYREKI EDWARDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2561

No. 2562

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2014

February 3, 2016

UNREPORTED

Eyler, Deborah S., Wright, Friedman, JJ.

CONSOLIDATED CASES

Opinion by Wright, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Appellant, Anthony Edwards, appeals from two sets of convictions for theft of goods valued over $1,000.00 arising from two separate jury trials in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. On February 6, 2015, Judge Maureen Lamasney, who presided over Case No. 13-1353X, and Judge Sean Wallace, who presided over Case No. 14-0225X, conducted a joint sentencing hearing. Judge Lamasney sentenced Edwards to six years' incarceration, and Judge Wallace imposed a sentence of ten years' incarceration with all but eight years suspended, to be served consecutive to Judge Lamasney's sentence, followed by five years of supervised probation upon release. Edwards noted a timely appeal in both cases, and we subsequently consolidated the two appeals.

Questions Presented

Edwards presents the following questions:

1. In Case No. 13-1353X, is the evidence sufficient to sustain [Edwards's] conviction for theft of goods valued over $1,000 under the theory of possession of stolen goods where [Edwards] possessed four items and the [S]tate produced no evidence of their value?

2. Did the court err in failing to merge [Edwards's] two theft convictions for sentencing purposes?

We answer "no" to the first question. As such, we vacate Edwards's conviction for theft of goods valued over $1,000.00 in Case No. 13-1353X, enter a conviction for the lesser included offense of theft under $1,000.00, and remand for resentencing on that count. In imposing a new sentence upon remand, the circuit court need not merge Edwards's two theft convictions, for reasons explained below.

Facts

I. Case No. 13-1353X

On September 17, 2013, Edwards was charged with burglary in the first, third, and fourth degree, theft of goods valued over $1,000.00, malicious destruction of property, and conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary. A jury trial was held on November 5-6, 2014.

Mary Gorham testified that she left her home in Fort Washington at approximately 7:00 a.m. on March 31, 2013, and returned the next day at approximately 8:00 p.m., when she discovered that her home had been broken into and the following items were missing: a television, a laptop, jewelry, jewelry boxes, and her mother's ashes. She estimated the total value of property that was taken to be approximately $5,000.00. Gorham testified that her television, her laptop, a necklace, and a class ring were later returned to her.

Detective David Gross of the Prince George's County Police Department testified that he arrested Edwards on April 1, 2013, after executing a search warrant. At the time of arrest, Edwards was wearing a class ring and a necklace. Det. Gross seized those two items, as well as other jewelry, a flat screen television, a laptop, and "some other items."

Following the close of all testimony, the circuit court granted Edwards's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the conspiracy and malicious destruction of property counts. Thereafter, the jury was instructed as follows regarding the theft count:

THE COURT: The Defendant is charged with the crime of theft, and the type of theft is possession of stolen property. In order to convict the Defendant of theft, the State must prove first, that the Defendant possessed stolen property; two, that the Defendant knew that the property was stolenor believed that it probably was stolen; and three, that the Defendant had the purpose of depriving the owner of the property; four, that the value of the property was at least $1,000 and less than $10,000.

Property means anything of value. Owner means a person, other than the Defendant, who has a lawful or unlawful possession of, or any other interest in the property, and without whose consent, the Defendant had no authority to exert control over the property.

Deprive means to withhold property of another permanently, for such a period of time as to appropriate a portion of its value, with the purpose of restoring it only upon payment of a reward or other compensation or to dispose of the property or use and deal with the property so as to make it unlikely that the owner would recover it.

And lastly, exclusive possession either alone or with others of recently stolen property, unless reasonably explained, may be evidence of theft. If you find that the Defendant was in possession of the property shortly after it was stolen, and the Defendant's possession is not otherwise explained by the evidence, you may, but are not required to, find the Defendant guilty of theft.

Possession means knowingly having the property on one's person, or knowingly having the property within one's control or at one's disposal.

In deciding whether the Defendant's possession was sufficiently close in time to the theft to be evidence of participation in the theft, you should consider all of the surrounding circumstances, including such factors as the type of property stolen, how the Defendant may have come into possession, and the amount of time between the theft and the Defendant's possession.

During closing argument, the State contended that "the Defendant was the one that went in," "[t]he person that had those things was the person that took them in the first place" and "[Edwards] is covered in stolen property because he took it." Following deliberations, the jury found Edwards guilty of theft of goods valued between $1,000.00and $10,000.00 and not guilty of first-degree burglary, third-degree burglary, or fourth-degree burglary.

II. Case No. 14-0225X

On February 11, 2014, Edwards was charged with burglary in the first, third, and fourth degree, theft of goods valued over $1,000.00, theft of goods valued over $10,000.00, malicious destruction of property, and conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary. A jury trial was held on January 8, 2015.

Allen Anthony testified that when he returned to his home at 9802 Parr Court in Fort Washington from work on March 21, 2013, he discovered that his home had been burglarized. Anthony testified that there was a broken window in the family room and that the following items were taken from the home: a safe, laptops, cameras, Wii games, $4,000.00 in cash, numerous pieces of jewelry and watches, clothing, shoes, passports, Social Security cards, birth certificates, a limited edition Louis Perrelet watch appraised at $5,500.00, iPads, iTouch, purses, and televisions. Allen valued the missing jewelry at $70,000.00, the home goods and electronics at $9,000.00, and the cash at $4,000.00.

Diana Seaborn testified that she was serving a sentence in Virginia and that on March 21, 2013, she and Edwards broke into the house at 9802 Parr Court. According to Seaborn, Edwards first entered the house by breaking a window in the back of the house and then "went into the house and opened up a side door." Seaborn stated that once inside, Edwards kicked open a locked bedroom upstairs, and they removed a locked safe, purses, shoes, watches, jewelry, clothing, a game system, and laptops from the house.They loaded all of the items into her uncle's truck and drove to a friend's house, where Edwards and the friend opened the safe. Edwards then announced that he was going to Virginia to sell the items in the safe. Later that evening, Seaborn and Edwards discarded the empty safe by throwing it off the 295 ramp.

Seaborn testified that the police came to her house on March 26, 2013, at which time she cooperated by providing them with information and returning all of the stolen items. At that time, she signed an agreement with the State, admitted to participating in numerous burglaries, pleaded guilty to burglary in two Maryland cases, and pleaded guilty to five burglaries in Virginia.¹ Seaborn testified that she led police to the safe that had been discarded off 295. Seaborn also stated that she was present in Edwards's house on April 1, 2013, during the execution of the search warrant (in Case No. 13-1353X).

Det. Gross testified that he was the lead investigator of the burglary at 9802 Parr Court. Det. Gross stated that he did not arrest Seaborn after she admitted to participating in this burglary because she was cooperating and providing information, but he did not promise her any benefit in exchange for her cooperation. He testified that Seaborn directed him to the safe that had been taken from the home and discarded from the highway, and that he obtained a search warrant for Edwards's home in Oxon Hill basedon information he obtained from Seaborn. Det. Gross stated that, when he executed the warrant on April 1, 2014, Edwards was arrested, and he was wearing a necklace and a watch that were subsequently identified by the Anthonys.

Following the close of all testimony, the circuit court granted Edwards's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of malicious destruction of property. Thereafter, the court instructed the jury as follows, with regard to the theft count:

[THE COURT]: . . . Defendant is charged with the crimes of theft. In order to convict the Defendant of theft, the State must prove: first, that the Defendant possessed stolen property; second, that the Defendant knew that the property was stolen and believed that it was probably stol[]en - - or believed that it was probably stolen; and third, that the Defendant had the purpose of depriving the owner of the property; fourth, and this is the distinction that the State has to prove that the value of the property was either over $1,000, which would apply to question number four or over $10,000, which would apply to question number five. Okay.

Property means anything of value. Owner means a person

...