Huggins v. State

1

Luis Felepe Huggins v. State of Maryland

No. 816-2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

October 20, 2021

Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. C-13-CR-19-000521

Arthur, Friedman, Sharer, J., Frederick (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

ARTHUR, J.

Following a two-day trial, a Howard County jury convicted appellant Luis Felepe Huggins of first-degree assault, use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, possession of a regulated firearm after a disqualifying conviction, possession of ammunition after a disqualifying conviction, and carrying a loaded handgun. The court sentenced Huggins to a total of 11 years of incarceration: five years for using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence; six years for first-degree assault, to be served consecutively to the sentence for using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence; and a total of six years, to be served concurrently with the other sentences, for the two possession offenses. At sentencing, the State dismissed the charge of carrying a loaded handgun.

Huggins appeals his convictions. He presents the following questions, which we have reordered, but otherwise quoted verbatim:

1. Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress?

2. Is the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction for first-degree assault and the related conviction for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence?

3. Did the trial court err by admitting "other crimes evidence"?

4. Did the trial court err in imposing a consecutive sentence for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, where the court mistakenly believed that a consecutive sentence was required?

For the following reasons, we shall vacate Huggins's sentences and remand for resentencing. We shall otherwise affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

On January 20, 2019, Huggins and his girlfriend, Chakia Hill, were celebrating his birthday in a suite at a hotel in Elkridge. Several other people were present, including Chakia Hill's brothers, Joshua Hill and Warner Smith. Joshua^[1] did not plan to stay long because he had to work the next day, and because he did not like to be around his sister and Huggins when they drank.

Huggins and Joshua began "play fighting." Joshua realized, from Huggins's facial expression and his "aggression," that he was "getting serious." Huggins "started putting more [ ] power into [ ] trying to take [Joshua] down[.]" Huggins eventually got on top of Joshua and pinned him to the floor by his wrists. Joshua was laughing, and Huggins warned him, "I'm not a little boy[;] stop playing with me like I'm a little boy." Joshua "backed down" and told Huggins, "[A]ll right, you got it." Joshua's brother, Warner Smith, intervened and lifted Huggins off of Joshua.

As Joshua was getting up from the floor, Huggins went into a bedroom, retrieved a black Glock handgun, and inserted a magazine. According to Joshua, Huggins "came back," with the gun "pointed down," and declared, "Yeah, I know I got it."

Joshua thought that Huggins was going to shoot him. Although Huggins did not point the gun at him, Joshua testified that "[a]nyone that pulls a gun out and look[s] at you and says to you, 'Yeah, I know I got it,' is a threat[.]"

Huggins walked out of the room. Joshua got up from the floor and "got [him]self together." He became angry and followed Huggins, grabbed Huggins by the throat and said, "[D]on't you ever point a gun at me again[.]" Huggins responding by punching Joshua's face and head.

Smith went to the lobby of the hotel and called 911. In the call, a recording of which was played for the jury, Smith reported that Huggins "pulled out a gun on" Joshua and physically assaulted him. Smith also reported that Huggins was still in the room with Chakia. The dispatcher instructed Smith to wait for the police in the lobby.

Officer Ronald Wetherson responded to the call and spoke to Smith. Smith informed the officer that the altercation took place in Room 204, that other people were in the room at the time, and that Huggins might still be in the room. After a few more officers arrived, the police began clearing the building to search for Huggins.

As the police approached Room 204, they learned that another officer had taken a suspect into custody outside the hotel. No gun was found on the suspect. According to Officer Wetherson, it was not clear at that time that the person in custody was Huggins.

Officer Wetherson opened the door to Room 204, using a key card that Smith had obtained from a hotel clerk. The police found no one inside.

The officers searched the room for the weapon. They discovered a Glock 17 handgun inside of a bag. The handgun was loaded with a magazine containing four live rounds of ammunition. The parties stipulated that Huggins was disqualified from possessing a regulated firearm because of a previous conviction.

As stated earlier in this opinion, Huggins was convicted of first-degree assault, using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, possessing a firearm following a disqualifying conviction, possessing ammunition following a disqualifying conviction, and carrying a loaded weapon.

We shall introduce additional facts as necessary in the discussion of the issues presented.

Discussion

I. Motion to Suppress

Before trial, Huggins moved to suppress the evidence collected from the hotel room. He claimed the search was illegal. The court denied the motion.

On appeal, Huggins challenges that ruling. He argues that Smith did not have the authority to consent to a search of the hotel room. Even if Smith did have the authority to consent to a search of the room, Huggins argues that Smith did not have the authority to consent to a search of containers within the room, such as the bag in which the officers found the gun. We shall not address this issue because Huggins affirmatively waived his objection to the admission of the evidence and, consequently, his right to an appellate claim that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

Rule 4-252(h)(2)(c) states that a pretrial ruling denying a motion to suppress evidence "is reviewable . . . on appeal of a conviction." In interpreting an earlier version of that rule, this Court stated that "the lower court's ruling on the motion is . . . preserved for appellate review, even if no contemporary objection is made at trial." Jackson v. State, 52 Md.App. 327, 331 (1982).

If, however, the court denies a motion to suppress and the defense affirmatively states that it has no objection to the admission of the contested evidence, the statement effects a waiver. See id. at 332 (citing Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. 605, 630 (1981)). For example, in Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. at 630, this Court held that a defendant had waived his objection to the denial of a motion to suppress his statement to the police because he "specifically advised the trial judge that there was no objection to the admission of the statement."

"Waiver 'extinguishes the waiving party's ability to raise any claim of error based upon that right.'" Brice v. State, 225 Md.App. 666, 679 (2015) (quoting Brockington v. Grimstead, 176 Md.App. 327, 355 (2007), aff'd, 417 Md. 332 (2010)). "'Thus, a party who validly waives a right may not complain on appeal that the court erred in denying him the right he waived, in part because, in that situation, the court's denial of the right was not error.'" Id. (quoting Brockington v. Grimstead, 176 Md. at 355).

In short, if a court denies a motion to suppress and the defendant says nothing at all when the State moves to introduce the challenged evidence at trial, the defendant has preserved an objection to the denial of the motion to suppress. Jackson v. State, 52 Md.App. at 331. If, on the other hand, the court denies a motion a suppress and the defendant affirmatively states that the defense has no objection to the introduction of the challenged evidence at trial, the defendant has waived the objection to the denial of the motion to suppress. Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. at 630.

At Huggins's trial, the State moved to introduce the gun and the ammunition found in Huggins's hotel room into evidence, along with photographs showing the gun inside of the bag. As to each item, defense counsel affirmatively stated that she had "no objection." Consequently, Huggins waived his objection to the disputed evidence (Erman v. State, 49 Md.App. at 630) and thereby extinguished his right to claim on appeal that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Brice v. State, 225 Md.App. at 679.^[2]

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Huggins contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction for first-degree assault. He maintains that we must therefore reverse that conviction, as well as the related conviction for use of a firearm in commission of a crime of violence, which was predicated on first-degree assault. We disagree.

In evaluating whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction, we ask "'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" McClurkin v. State, 222 Md.App. 461, 486 (2015) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (emphasis in original). We do not "retry the case" or "re-weigh the credibility of witnesses or attempt to resolve any conflicts in the evidence." Smith v. State, 415 Md. 174, 185 (2010). Instead, "we give 'due regard to the [fact-finder's] findings of facts, its resolution of conflicting evidence, and, significantly, its opportunity to observe and assess the credibility of witnesses.'" McClurkin, ...