Franklin v. State

1

KELLY JEROME FRANKLIN v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1090-2023

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

November 18, 2024

UNREPORTED

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No.: 121277013

Friedman, Kehoe, S., Hotten, Michele D. (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Hotten, J.

Following a five-day trial, a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted Kelly Franklin, appellant, of eight counts-robbery and second-degree assault of Tanisha Johnson; robbery and second-degree assault of Russell Henniger; attempted robbery, second-degree assault, and attempted theft ($1,500 - $25,000) of Oluwadamilolo Sabuto; and theft ($1,500 - $25,000) from a CVS Pharmacy. The court imposed a sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment for the robbery of Henniger, five consecutive years' imprisonment for theft from the CVS, and two terms of ten years' imprisonment, all suspended with five years of probation, for the robbery of Johnson and attempted robbery of Sabuto, with sentences for the remaining counts being merged.

On appeal, Franklin presents four questions for our review,^[1] which we have consolidated as follows:

1. Did the trial court err in completely delegating its responsibility to manage courtroom security to security personnel?

2. Is the evidence sufficient to sustain Franklin's convictions for attempted theft from Sabuto and theft from the CVS, where the State failed to show that the pharmaceuticals were valued at $1,500 - $25,000?

3. Under either the rule of lenity or fundamental fairness, must Franklin's sentence for theft from the CVS merge into his sentence for robbery of Henniger?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall remand for resentencing but otherwise affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

On September 16, 2021, Baltimore City police officer Donnell Jackson responded to a call for service at a Baltimore City CVS. Upon arrival, CVS employees were pointing frantically to a person who was running across the CVS parking lot, holding a trash bag. Officer Jackson pursued the person, later identified as Franklin, until he apprehended him in the front yard of a residence, about 50 yards from the CVS. Officer Jackson discovered a cellphone on Franklin's person that belonged to Johnson, a CVS employee. In the area where Franklin was apprehended, Officer Jackson also found a bookbag containing money, a pocketbook that belonged to McLaren, the CVS manager, and the trash bag that Franklin was seen with, which contained prescription drugs from CVS.

CVS surveillance footage from the incident showed that the individual who robbed the store was wearing red shoes, sunglasses, a white mask, a wig, and possibly fake breasts. However, Franklin was not wearing sunglasses, a white mask, fake breasts, or a wig when Officer Jackson apprehended him. Officer Jackson did find a mask in the area, but it was blue. Officer Jackson did not see Franklin remove a disguise at any point during his pursuit, and did not find a wig, sunglasses, or fake breasts in the area where Franklin was apprehended.

Franklin was indicted on twelve counts, including various robbery, theft, and assault charges.^[2] His jury trial took place between February 24 and March 2, 2023, where he proceeded pro se. On February 24, 2023, the first day of trial, the circuit court explained to Franklin how courtroom security would proceed, given his decision to proceed pro se. The court warned that "[i]f Mr. Franklin chooses to move, he needs to understand that the Correctional Officers are going to move with him because he is in their custody." The court went on to explain, "he needs to understand there is no option, they will move with him because he is in their custody and he will not have either leg shackles and [sic] handcuffs." The court assured Franklin that the correctional officers were "not going to be intrusive," but again warned that "they're not in my direct control."

Franklin objected to the proposed security procedures, perceiving that the security arrangements might give the jury the impression that he was guilty. He stated that "[i]t makes it look more that I'm in custody and makes me look dangerous, like as if I'm a dangerous person." In response, the circuit court acknowledged, "It does." However, the court doubled down on its earlier warnings, stating:

You're not in my custody. It's not a choice I get to make. I'm merely alerting you in advance. You're in their custody. I cannot direct them not to do it. I cannot. But I'm letting you know in advance so you are not surprised on Monday.

Franklin renewed his objection to the security procedures, stating, "[Y]ou're giving the State the advantage of me being a criminal and me looking bad and me looking aggressive as if I'm wrong and dangerous." However, the circuit court again maintained, "It's not my choice," and "I cannot stop them from moving with him and I'm not going to." The trial proceeded with these security measures in place.

Franklin was ultimately convicted of eight counts-robbery and second-degree assault of Johnson; robbery and second-degree assault of Henniger; attempted robbery, second-degree assault, and attempted theft ($1,500 - $25,000) of Sabuto; and theft ($1,500 - $25,000) from the CVS. On June 13, 2023, the circuit court sentenced Franklin to fifteen years' imprisonment for the robbery of Henniger, five consecutive years' imprisonment for theft from the CVS, and two terms of ten years' imprisonment, all suspended with five years of probation, for the robbery of Johnson and attempted robbery of Sabuto, with sentences for the remaining counts being merged.

Franklin noted this timely appeal on June 30, 2023.

DISCUSSION

I. Franklin Fails to Show that he was Prejudiced by the Courtroom Security Procedures

Franklin asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion by delegating the responsibility to manage courtroom security to security personnel. He further contends that he was prejudiced by this security arrangement because it allowed correctional officers to follow him around the courtroom while he presented his case to the jury, thereby denying him the right to a fair trial.

The right to a fair trial, which includes the presumption of innocence, is a fundamental liberty right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Knott v. State, 349 Md. 277, 286 (1998) (citing Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976)). The general rule in this State "'is that the conduct of a criminal trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.'" Campbell v. State, 243 Md.App. 507, 518 (2019) (quoting Wiggins v. State, 315 Md. 232, 239 (1989)) (cleaned up). However, that control "'must safeguard the defendant's constitutional rights,'" including the right to a fair trial. Id. (quoting Kelly v. State, 392 Md. 511, 543 (2006)). "'If the exercise of discretion results in the denial of a fair trial to a defendant, the discretion is certainly abused.'" Id. (quoting Wiggins, 315 Md. at 240).

Franklin carries a heavy burden in convincing this Court that the circuit court's decisions regarding courtroom security necessitate reversal of his convictions. Franklin must prove three things to secure a reversal of his convictions: (1) that he did not waive his objection to the courtroom security procedures by failing to raise it below;^[3] (2) that the circuit court abused its discretion by completely delegating its responsibility to manage courtroom security to security personnel;^[4] and (3) that Franklin was prejudiced by the courtroom security procedures.^[5] Although Franklin is correct that he preserved his objection for appeal, the third requirement is fatal to Franklin's argument. Since he failed to show that he was prejudiced by the courtroom security procedures, the circuit court's abuse of discretion does not necessitate reversal of Franklin's convictions.

A. Waiver

Franklin contends that his security procedures argument is "squarely preserved" because he not only raised it several times at the start of trial, but the circuit court also ruled on the matter several times. The State, however, contends that Franklin waived his objection because "[a]lthough Franklin voiced his concern about the security procedures generally, he never argued that the court was failing to exercise its discretion." Alternatively, the State argues that Franklin affirmatively waived his challenge to the courtroom security procedures by agreeing with them.

Under Maryland Rule 4-323(c), a general objection preserves an issue for appellate review, and a party need not state specific grounds for the objection unless the court directs the party to do so.^[6] Franklin made his objection to the courtroom security procedures clear, on the record, several times.^[7] Additionally, the circuit court never directed Franklin to give more specific grounds for his objection to the security procedures. "[T]he 'effect of a general objection in this State is far-reaching.... We have said that when the trial court does not request a statement of the grounds for an objection, a general objection is sufficient to preserve all grounds which may exist.'" Wilder v. State, 191 Md.App. 319, 355 (2010) (quoting Boyd v. State, 399 Md. 457, 476 (2007)). Thus, Franklin's general objections to the courtroom security procedures suffice to preserve his argument for appeal.

Additionally the State concedes that although "Franklin initially waived an objection by stating that he was agreeing to all of it . . . [h]e later revived his objection." The State goes on to argue that after reviving his objection to the courtroom security procedures, Franklin "again waived it by indicating that his objection depended on how the security procedures were carried out." ...