In re Terrez C.

IN RE: TERREZ C.

No. 2223

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2013

June 11, 2015

UNREPORTED

Meredith, Graeff, Leahy, JJ.

Opinion by Graeff, 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.

On October 29, 2013, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, sitting as a juvenile court, found Terrez C., appellant, involved in the delinquent acts of theft, motor vehicle theft, and conspiracy to steal the vehicle.¹ On December 16, 2013, a disposition hearing was held, and the court placed appellant on supervised probation with the Department of Juvenile Services.

On appeal, appellant presents one question for our review:

Was the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's adjudication that appellant was involved in the delinquent acts of theft, motor vehicle theft, and conspiracy?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgments of the juvenile court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 7, 2013, the victim left her job as a bartender and drove her 2006 burgundy Mercedes SUV to a nearby Exxon gas station. She pulled up to the gas pump closest to the convenience store, retrieved a $10 bill and her cell phone, and walked toward the convenience store. A man approached her from behind and screamed: "Give me everything you have." The victim slowly turned around, and the man pointed a black handgun directly at her face. The man was approximately six feet tall, wore a handkerchief over his face, had "long dreadlocks," and wore dark sunglasses.

The man took the ten dollars and the cell phone the victim was holding and ran toward her car. He then yelled for the victim to give him her car keys. When she tossed thekeys to the man, she noticed two other African American men "positioned by [her] car, which was when [she] realized that [the men] weren't after the items in [her] car, [but] they were actually going to take [her] car." She ran into the convenience store, stating that she had been robbed, and she "collapsed underneath the [cashier's] desk." The cashier called the police.

Metropolitan Police Officer Angela Galley received a "lookout" for an "armed carjacking that had just occurred" at a gas station near the Key Bridge and the District of Columbia/Maryland line.² She and her training officer, William Belton, began driving near the Key Bridge, looking for a mid-size, maroon, Mercedes SUV. Approximately 20-30 minutes after receiving the lookout, Officer Galley spotted a vehicle meeting that description, and the officers turned around to follow it.

At the same time, Metropolitan Police Officer Matthew Hillard,³ and his training officer, Officer Carter,⁴ began to canvas the area surrounding the Key Bridge Exxon. Officer Carter thought the vehicle might be on Arizona Avenue because "a lot of armed carjackings, they like to take it up to Arizona." As they were driving along Canal Road toward Arizona Avenue, they spotted what they believed to be the stolen Mercedes SUV.

At that point, Officers Hillard and Carter, along with Officers Galley and Belton, engaged their vehicles' emergency lights and sirens in an attempt to effectuate a traffic stop, but the SUV "took off at a high rate of speed." A chase ensued. The SUV continued, crossing into Bethesda, Maryland. Because it was raining and dark outside, and because the SUV was traveling at a very high rate of speed, the officers were advised to call off the chase.

Officers Hillard and Carter decided to "back[] off a little bit," but Officers Galley and Belton continued following the SUV until Officer Galley noticed "the taillights of the stolen SUV go off the side of the road, [and] come back down, causing the vehicle to crash and stop where it was." The crash occurred only a few miles from the Key Bridge Exxon station.

Officers Galley and Belton drove to the scene of the crash. They exited their vehicle and observed three men, who fit the description of the assailants from the gas station, exiting the totaled SUV. One of the men exited out of the rear "hatchback window," which had been completely shattered in the crash, and he headed to the right, into a wooded area bordering a neighborhood. The other two men, one of which "had dreads in his hair," headed to the left, toward a nearby river. Although it was dark outside and raining, the officers were able to see the three men rather clearly because the officers were parked very close to the crashed vehicle, their police vehicle had bright lights on top of it, and there were bright lights that illuminated the area.

Officer Galley described the man who exited the vehicle from the rear window as African American. He was wearing a "dark-colored raincoat, dark pants, and sneakers that were reflective" and had orange on them. Officer Galley never saw the man's face. Because she was closest to this particular man, Officer Galley chased after him, but only for approximately thirty seconds because she knew that at least one of the men involved had a weapon and she did not want to leave Officer Belton.

Officer Galley returned to the scene of the crash. Other officers then arrived, including Officers Hillard and Carter. The officers searched the SUV, and in the "hatchback, trunk area," they found a black, 40 caliber handgun. Approximately 20 yards from where the car crashed, Officer Hillard found the black and orange baseball cap that he saw on the driver.

Officer Paul Petty was the first Montgomery County Police Officer to arrive at the scene of the crash. He testified that the vehicle was "heavily damaged. It had rolled over . . . . [The] [w]indows were busted out, [and the] tires were flattened."

After receiving a description of the assailants from the Metropolitan Officers, Officer Petty "put up" a "basic, general lookout" describing the three men to other Montgomery County Officers assigned to the Bethesda District. Thinking that the suspects likely escaped into the residential area east of the crash scene, he began driving his police car through the nearby neighborhoods.

Officer Daniel Boyle, another member of the Montgomery County Police Department, also began driving around the neighborhood near the crash scene. Two teenagers "flagged" him, stating that a young, African American male wearing a white T-shirt and jeans told them that he "had been kidnapped or that he was in some sort of trouble."

When Officer Boyle went to the reported location of the young male, which was "less than two miles, less than a mile, maybe" from the scene of the crash, he saw a young man emerge from behind shrubbery along the side of the road. The man was wearing a white T-shirt and jeans, was wet from the rain, smelled of alcohol, and had a fresh "lump on his forehead." Officer Petty arrived on the scene a few minutes later, and he testified that the injury looked like "a very serious rug burn" or like the young man had "scraped [his forehead] against the concrete."

Officer Boyle detained the young man. When Metropolitan Police Officers Galley and Belton arrived, they identified the young man as the person who escaped out of the rear hatchback window of the victim's Mercedes SUV. Officer Galley testified that she was able to identify him because of his small stature and because she recognized his reflective sneakers with "orange coloring on them." Although he was not wearing the dark colored raincoat she described, the white T-shirt "was perfectly dry," despite the rain, and theofficers subsequently found a dark-colored rain coat.⁵ Once Officer Galley identified the young man, he was transported to the hospital to treat the injury on his forehead.

At trial, Officers Boyle, Galley, and Petty identified appellant as the young man who exited from the rear of the vehicle involved in the crash. The victim identified the totaled Mercedes as her SUV. She testified that the Kelly Blue Book value of her vehicle at the time it was stolen was approximately $25,000.

Appellant did not testify or present any evidence. As indicated, the juvenile court found appellant involved in acts that would be crimes if committed as an adult.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends that the evidence was "insufficient to support the trial court's finding that [he] was involved in theft, motor vehicle theft, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and conspiracy to commit these crimes and its finding that appellant was delinquent." He does not challenge the juvenile court's finding that he was present in the vehicle, but rather, he asserts that the State failed to show, as required to support the finding of involved, either that he participated in the initial theft, that he knew the SUV was stolen, or that he had control over the SUV.⁶

The State disagrees. It contends that the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding.

A delinquent act is defined as "an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult." Md. Code (2012 Supp.) § 3-8A-01(l) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP"). An allegation that a juvenile has committed a delinquent act must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. CJP § 3-8A-18(c)(1); Md. Rule 11-114(e)(l). The evidence is legally sufficient to meet this standard if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the [State], any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the [delinquency petition] beyond a reasonable doubt." In re Timothy F., 343 Md. 371, 380 (1996) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979)). Accord In re Heather B., 369 Md. 257, 270 (2002). The standard of review on appeal is whether the evidence showed directly or circumstantially or supported a rational inference of facts that enabled the trier of fact to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile committed the act. In re Landon G., 214 Md. App. 483,...