Rodriguez-Hernandez v. State

CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ-HERNANDEZ v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 963

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2016

October 1, 2019

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No. 127689

UNREPORTED

Leahy, Reed, Shaw Geter, JJ.

Opinion by Reed, 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.

Christian Rodriguez-Hernandez (hereinafter "Appellant"), was indicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and charged with first-degree assault and conspiracy to commit first-degree assault. After his Motion to Transfer to Juvenile Court was denied, Appellant was convicted by a jury on both counts. Appellant was sentenced to ten years, with all but three years suspended, for first-degree assault, and a consecutive ten years, with all but three years suspended, for conspiracy to commit first-degree assault, to be followed by five years supervised probation. Appellant timely appealed and presents the following questions for our review:

I. Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant's Motion to Transfer to Juvenile Court?

II. Did the circuit court err in refusing to give the requested instruction on self-defense?

For the following reasons, we answer these questions in the negative and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On the evening of July 6, 2015, Terry Newell was talking with a friend outside of a Dunkin Donuts shop, located in the Randolph Hills area of Montgomery County, when a man rode by on a bicycle. Newell and this man had been involved in an earlier incident that evening at a McDonald's restaurant. This man stared at Newell for some time, then rode away from the area.

Moments later, when Newell was walking home this same man returned, accompanied by three additional men, including Appellant. The man, who had the earlierincident with Newell, was armed with a knife. Other members of the group were also armed. One man had a baseball bat, the third had a baseball, and although Newell did not see it at first, the fourth man in the group was armed with a Taser. Seeing the first man draw a knife, Newell admitted that he pulled out a knife that he carried for protection.

These four men then came upon Newell, with the first man flinging a bicycle at him as another man threw a baseball at Newell. They then chased Newell down Viers Mill Road, until Newell was able to cross Connecticut Avenue. At that time, the primary assailant approached Newell and slashed his arm with a knife, causing heavy bleeding. The second man, who had been throwing baseballs, then threw rocks at Newell, apparently striking him.

At that point, Newell decided to run back across Connecticut Avenue, still trying to flee his assailants. However, all four men, including Appellant, eventually surrounded him. It was then, as the four men were surrounding him, that one of them hit Newell with a baseball bat, splitting his hand open as a result. It was at this point that Newell saw Appellant armed with a Taser. Newell testified as follows:

Q. Okay, why don't you tell us, tell the jury if you would, what happened with that Taser?

A. Um, that Taser, um, well he didn't get me, but that's when I got surrounded almost and he was on this side and then the guy with the knife was on this side. So, it's like I'm trying to like, I don't know who is going to do what at this point, so, I'm kind of jumping around in between and next thing you know, he buzzed the Taser, bzzz, so, now I'm like really freaking out and then they're coming this way, so, I'm just in complete panic mode at this point.

Before he sustained any further injury, Newell then yelled for help and for someone to call the police. At that point, the four men backed off and left the scene. After the police and fire department arrived, Newell was transported to Suburban Hospital where he was treated for his multiple injuries. Newell eventually identified photographs of his assailants, including Appellant.

Motion to Transfer Hearing

A Reverse Waiver hearing was held on November 20, 2015 where Nicole Beatty, with the Department of Juvenile Services (the "Department"), testified that she completed a Motion to Transfer investigation report in this case. Beatty summarized her findings by recommending that Appellant be waived to the juvenile court system. In support of that recommendation, Beatty considered the necessary factors, explaining that Appellant was 17 years and 7 months old when he was charged, and that the Department could have jurisdiction until he was 21 years old. There were residential programs still available for him, including "behavior modification type programs." There were also other community-based services available for potential placement if he was waived down to the juvenile system. According to Beatty, since Appellant had not been placed with the Department before, it was unlikely he would automatically be placed on probation once he turned 18. Further, she stated that "[w]e would follow through in order to request a successful closure."

Beatty also testified that she met with Appellant and believed she could work with him. This was based on the fact that during pre-trial supervision, Appellant was tasked with certain things pursuant to a contract and had completed those tasks as assigned. Beattyalso met with Appellant's father and spoke with his mother, and they both seemed "very involved and very concerned." Beatty concluded that Appellant's amenability to treatment weighed in favor of waiver to juvenile court.

However, she agreed that Appellant's mental and physical ability weighed in favor of keeping him in criminal court. Beatty explained that, although Appellant did not suffer from any mental health disorders, had never been diagnosed or treated for any mental health condition, and appeared to be of sound mind, he did suffer a very serious injury, around December 6, 2014, which caused him to lapse into a coma for some time. Appellant was still healing from broken ribs and was being treated for damage to his lungs. Beatty continued that Appellant, who was in the tenth grade at the time, missed "a tremendous amount of school" due to his injuries following the accident. However, Beatty acknowledged that, prior to his arrest in connection with this case, Appellant had a "history of being suspended." Appellant was suspended for 18 days for possessing marijuana on school property, and also was suspended for 33 days for bringing a "four and a half inch filing tool, with a sharp, silver, pointed edge" to school. Appellant also received a five-day suspension from school for assaulting another student.

Beatty then testified that the nature of the offense in this case also weighed in favor of keeping Appellant in the criminal court. She considered the injuries to the victim and the nature of the offense and recognized that Appellant did not directly inflict any of those injuries to the victim. She also did not believe that Appellant was a danger to public safety, based on the fact that he did not have a history of "violent, aggressive behavior." Shetestified that "[t]his appears to be a one-time offense and we believe that, although it is very serious, we can properly supervise him through the juvenile facility."

On cross-examination, Beatty was not aware that since Appellant's arrest in this case, Appellant was found in possession of a Taser at a campground in Frederick County. But, she was aware that there was a prior incident where Appellant gave a false name to police when he was caught shoplifting at a J.C. Penney. Beatty also knew of allegations that Appellant was involved in gang activity, as set forth in the police report of the underlying assault in this case. With respect to Appellant's amenability to treatment, Beatty confirmed that, although residential facilities were available, and Appellant was "eligible" for placement, she was not actually aware if any were "readily available or prepared" at the time. She also confirmed that Appellant recently tested positive for marijuana. In fact, he had recently tested positive six out of ten times.

Following examination by the parties, the circuit court then questioned Beatty. The circuit court asked her several clarifying questions about possible residential placement, Appellant's suspensions from school, and Appellant's recent interactions with police after the incident in question. The circuit court concluded its colloquy with her as follows:

THE COURT: Okay. This is a young man who, seemingly, on at least three occasions, is running around, if you will. With a weapon. What am I to make of that? I mean - Tasers. It's not (unintelligible).

MS. BEATTY: I don't [sic] how long he's had the Taser for. From the time of this offense to the time he was caught in Frederick was about a week. So, I don't know if we can say that he has had the Taser for 10 days or a year. We don't, we don't know.

THE COURT: What am I to make of his alleged [sic], because nothing is presumed, and it goes one way as opposed to the other way, I'maware of that, of him joining a group of other young people chasing some guy down the street when three out of four of the assailant[s] had deadly weapons? Weapons that could inflict death upon somebody? What do I make of that scene in my mind of four guys chasing some guy down the street, with weapons, going after him?

MS. BEATTY: Again -

THE COURT: What does that do for me?

MS. BEATTY: The department, obviously, is concerned about that, and this is his first contact with us that's been of [sic] violent nature. That -

THE COURT: What is it that he doesn't understand that you're going to tell him? Don't do that?

MS. BEATTY: I don't know if it's what I'm going to tell him, it's what these programs can tell him and offer him.

THE COURT: Don't chase people down the street, yielding deadly weapons, trying to maim them? Don't do that,

...