Leonard v. State

1

TROTEZ LEONARD v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1475-2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

December 21, 2021

Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No. 10-K-15-057361

Arthur, Leahy, Reed, JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

LEAHY J.

Appellant Trotez Leonard, was arrested in 2016, along with his girlfriend and his brother, after the police pulled over their car and discovered a gun inside a purse that was lying on the floor of the front passenger compartment next to Mr. Leonard's feet. The purse belonged to the driver, Mr. Leonard's girlfriend. All three occupants of the vehicle were charged in connection with the incident. On July 21, 2016, Mr. Leonard was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Frederick County of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a crime of violence, Maryland Code (2003, 2018 Repl. Vol.), Public Safety Article ("PS"), § 5-133(c), and possession of ammunition after a disqualifying felony conviction, PS § 5-133.1.^[1]

At the trial, Mr. Leonard sought to testify on his own behalf, but the State indicated that it intended to impeach his testimony by asking him about prior convictions. Upon learning this, Mr. Leonard told the court that his decision to testify depended on the court's determination of whether the impeachment evidence was admissible. However, the judge decided that it was not "appropriate for the [c]ourt to make a pre-ruling," and indicated that the ruling would be deferred until (and unless) Mr. Leonard took the stand and the State tried to ask him about a prior conviction. He chose not to testify, and so the court never ruled whether the impeachment evidence was admissible.

Mr. Leonard directed his attorney to file a notice of appeal. Due to a clerical error, however, his attorney filed the notice of appeal under the wrong case number, ^[2] and his case did not immediately proceed to an appeal. Because the appeal was foiled through no fault of Mr. Leonard, the circuit court granted Mr. Leonard permission to file a belated appeal in February 2021.^[3]

In his appeal to this Court, Mr. Leonard presents the following questions:

"1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to rule in advance upon whether [Mr. Leonard] could be impeached with his prior convictions?"

"2. Is the evidence insufficient to sustain Mr. Leonard's convictions?"

There are two components to the question of whether the circuit court abused its discretion by not making an advance ruling on whether the State could impeach Mr. Leonard with his prior conviction. First, we hold that once Mr. Leonard was granted the right to file a belated appeal, his conviction was no longer final. Taylor v. State, 236 Md.App. 397 (2018), rev'd on other grounds, 473 Md. 205 (2021); see also Taylor, 473 Md. at 239 (Biran, J. concurring) ("My reasoning boils down to the fact that, after Mr. Taylor was granted the right to file a belated appeal, his conviction was no longer final."). Accordingly, the law to be applied in this case is that which existed at the time of his belated appeal, just as it would if his appeal were not belated. Taylor, 473 Md. at 232 n.19 ("[A] belated appeal . . . is, in fact, a very delayed direct appeal.").

Second, we hold that, under Burnside v. State, 459 Md. 657 (2018) and Dallas v. State, 413 Md. 569 (2010), the circuit court failed to exercise its discretion when it declined to make an advance ruling on whether Mr. Leonard could be impeached with his prior convictions.

There are also two components to the question of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Mr. Leonard's convictions. First, we hold that Mr. Leonard properly preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because he satisfied the requirement in Maryland Rule 4-324(a) that a defendant making a motion for judgment of acquittal must "state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted." Although he did not explicitly state the reasons why the motion should be granted at the time he made the motion, he incorporated by reference earlier arguments which did state the reasons with particularity, thus satisfying the rule's purpose of "enabl[ing] the trial judge to be aware of the precise basis for the defendant's belief that the evidence is insufficient." Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474, 487 (1989).

Second, we hold that the evidence presented in Mr. Leonard's trial was sufficient to sustain his convictions. Under the factors established by Folk v. State, 11 Md.App. 508, 518 (1971), the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that Mr. Leonard had both knowledge and dominion and control over the firearm and ammunition-putting him in constructive possession of both items.

Because the circuit court abused its discretion by not making an advance ruling on whether Mr. Leonard could be impeached by his prior convictions, we vacate the judgments of the circuit court and remand for a new trial.

BACKGROUND

A. The Arrest

Mr. Leonard had a one-day jury trial on July 21, 2016. The testimony provided in Mr. Leonard's defense was sparse-Mr. Leonard did not testify in his own defense, and his two witnesses both invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege during their testimony. The background relating to the arrest, therefore, is derived from the trial testimony of two of the officers who responded to the scene-Deputy Ira Redman of the Frederick County Sheriff's Office, and Officer Michael Conover of the Frederick Police Department.

On September 23, 2015, Deputy Redman pulled a car over on the side of the road when he saw it speeding. Mr. Leonard was in the front passenger seat. The car was driven by Amanda Bray, who is Mr. Leonard's girlfriend and was then pregnant with his child. In the back seat was Keith Wright, Mr. Leonard's brother. None of the occupants owned the car; it was owned by Jacoby Simpson, who was not present at the traffic stop and plays no other apparent role in these events.

When Deputy Redman pulled the car over, he noticed that there was a purse on the floor of the car between Mr. Leonard's legs. After observing that Mr. Leonard, Ms. Bray, and Mr. Wright seemed nervous, Deputy Redman requested a K-9 officer to respond. Officer Conover arrived at the scene and performed a scan of the vehicle. After the dog alerted, Deputy Redman and Officer Conover "pulled all the occupants out of the vehicle to conduct a search of the vehicle."

Deputy Redman and Officer Conover took the purse out of the car and began looking inside. Inside the purse, there was a black plastic bag; inside the black plastic bag was a zippered nylon case; inside the nylon case was something wrapped in cellophane; inside the cellophane was a sock; and inside the sock was a handgun. Deputy Redman testified that neither Officer Conover nor he took the gun out of the sock, and the gun was not visible to Mr. Leonard. The police later conducted a fingerprint test on the gun and DNA tests on a hair found in the plastic wrapping and on a sample taken from the gun, but the results were inconclusive.

After discovering the gun, Deputy Redman decided to speak with the occupants of the vehicle. Deputy Redman first walked Ms. Bray out of earshot from Mr. Leonard and Mr. Wright and asked her questions. The record does not indicate what was said in this conversation.

Deputy Redman then brought Mr. Leonard away from Ms. Bray and Mr. Wright so that Mr. Leonard could be questioned. After he was read his Miranda rights, Mr. Leonard "stated that he didn't know why [Deputy Redman] was getting him out of the vehicle because his brother was going to take the charge for the gun." According to Deputy Redman, Mr. Leonard stated that "he couldn't take the charge because . . . he was already on probation," and that "Ms. Bray . . . could not take a charge because she was pregnant and should not go to jail, so his brother, referring to Mr. Wright, was going to take the charge for the gun."

At this point, according to Deputy Redman, he had not said anything about the gun to Mr. Leonard and the gun had not been made visible to him. Deputy Redman testified at trial that Mr. Leonard had no opportunity to talk to Ms. Bray after the deputy's conversation with her, because he "immediately sat down Ms. Bray and retrieved Mr. Leonard, and then [he] walked away." He also testified, however, that Mr. Leonard was sitting with Mr. Wright alone on the curb for several minutes, and that it is possible that they spoke to each other during that time.

Officer Conover testified that the pair did talk to each other while they were sitting together because he overheard their conversation. He heard Mr. Leonard tell Mr. Wright that "he couldn't take this charge," and that "he needed to take the charge for him." Officer Conover clarified at trial that Mr. Leonard "was speaking of himself to Mr. Wright, that Mr. Wright needed to take the charge, in other words, take ownership of the handgun."

At some point during the stop, Deputy Redman asked Mr. Wright if he could identify the gun. Mr. Wright claimed ownership of the gun, but he was unable to answer a series of questions Deputy Redman asked him about it, including whether it was loaded, what caliber it was, and if he could describe it. Mr. Wright was only able to identify it as a handgun. Because Mr. Wright claimed ownership of the gun, Deputy Redman did not ask either Mr. Leonard or Ms. Bray about it.

The officers arrested all three occupants of the car for possession of a handgun. Mr. Leonard was initially charged with transporting a handgun in a vehicle, Maryland Code (2002, Repl. Vol. 2012, 2017 Supp.), Criminal Law Article ("CR"), § 4-203; illegal possession of ammunition, PS § 5-133.1; possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony under Title 5 of the Criminal Law Article, ...