Seivers v. State

1

AARON VICTOR SEIVERS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1914-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

December 1, 2023

UNREPORTED^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. 03-K-07-005653

Berger, Shaw, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Berger, J.

This case is before us on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County denying a petition for writ of error coram nobis filed by appellant, Aaron Victor Seivers ("Seivers"). On appeal, Seivers presents three questions for our review, which we have rephrased and consolidated into a single question as follows:^[1]

Whether the circuit court erred in denying Seivers's petition for writ of error coram nobis.

For the reasons explained herein, we shall affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We set out the facts of this case in our opinion filed October 6, 2010 affirming Seivers's conviction on direct appeal.^[2] We adopt that statement of facts and restate the most relevant facts here.

Incident Leading to Indictment

On October 28, 2007, between approximately 6:20 and 6:25 a.m., a man entered the McDonald's located at 2107 East Joppa Road in Parkville, Maryland and ordered a beverage. While McDonald's employee Mylaina Robertson prepared his order, the man produced a gun and ordered her and her colleagues to the backroom of the restaurant. These colleagues included Kevin Walker, Joseph Walker, and the manager on duty, Dwayne Perkins. In the backroom, the man demanded that Perkins open the safe located in the restaurant. Perkins complied and the man retrieved approximately $1,080 from the safe, placing the money into a plastic bag and leaving the building through a side door. The employees at the McDonald's saw the man cross Joppa Road and turn down Clement Avenue.

Perkins called the police while Kevin Walker joined Robertson in her car to pursue the perpetrator. They drove down Clement Avenue and saw the perpetrator walking towards an apartment complex. Walker and Robertson drove down the street parallel to Clement Avenue, parked, and entered the apartment building. From inside the complex, they observed someone wearing the same clothes as the perpetrator enter the passenger side of a silver BMW. The man reclined his seat until he was no longer visible, and the BMW exited the apartment complex. Robertson and Walker returned to Robertson's car and followed the BMW. At one point during their pursuit of the car, Robertson was able to observe the individual driving the BMW, who she later identified to police to be Seivers.

Robertson and Walker returned to the McDonald's and spoke with the Baltimore County Police officers who responded to the scene - Officer Nancy Moroz and Detective Keith Lang. The officers identified the BMW as Seivers's vehicle and learned that Seivers was a trainee with the Baltimore City Police Department. Officer Moroz and Detective Lang called Seivers to the Baltimore City Police Southern District Station for questioning. Detective Lang immediately recognized that Seivers did not match the perpetrator's description and informed Seivers that his vehicle had been implicated in a crime. During questioning, Seivers gave inconsistent answers as to his whereabouts during the time of the robbery. He first indicated he had been asleep at home during the robbery, and then asserted he had been at his girlfriend's apartment and getting gas at that time. Seivers also told the officers that he had been alone in his car that morning. The following day, the officers conducted a search of Seivers's vehicle pursuant to a warrant and retrieved a receipt confirming that Seivers made a transaction at the BP gas station on Joppa Road on the morning of the robbery at approximately 6:20 a.m.

On December 10, 2007, Seivers was indicted by a grand jury on charges of armed robbery, robbery, assault, theft, use of a handgun during a crime of violence, conspiracy to commit robbery and armed robbery, and accessory after the fact to armed robbery.

Trial, Motion for New Trial, and Appeal

Prior to trial, Seivers moved to suppress his statements to Detective Lang and Officer Moroz, asserting that they were made during a custodial interrogation without receiving proper Miranda warnings. The circuit court held a hearing on the matter on April 9, 2008 and denied Seivers's motion to suppress. Seivers's trial commenced the following day on April 10, 2008. The State proceeded on two counts of robbery, two counts of armed robbery, four counts of first-degree assault, and four counts of use of a handgun during a crime of violence, asserting that Seivers was guilty as an aider and abettor of these crimes. The State also proceeded on one count of accessory after the fact to armed robbery.

At trial, Robertson identified Seivers as the individual driving the silver BMW on the morning of October 28, 2007. Additionally, multiple witnesses testified that the perpetrator's gun looked like a police officer's service weapon. This included the testimony of Detective Lang, who testified that Baltimore City police officers and trainees are each issued a Glock semi-automatic handgun and that surveillance photos of the robbery showed the perpetrator handling what "appear[ed] to be a Glock." Seivers moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case and after closing arguments. The court denied both motions. The jury found Seivers guilty of all charges except accessory after the fact. Thereafter, the court granted Seivers's request to postpone sentencing.

On or about April 22, 2008, Seivers's trial counsel withdrew from the case. Seivers's new counsel filed a motion for a new trial on April 22, 2008. The circuit court held a hearing on February 13, 2009 to consider Seivers's motion, during which Seivers raised multiple arguments that were not included in his motion. Because the State was unfamiliar with and unprepared to contest Seivers's new claims, the court granted the State's request for a continuance. The court reconvened on May 11, 2009. At the hearing, Seivers raised for the first time his argument that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to respond to alleged Brady and discovery violations in a timely manner. The circuit court held that this argument was not timely raised and denied Seivers's motion for a new trial, concluding trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance falling below an objective standard of reasonableness.

The court then immediately proceeded with sentencing. Seivers received identical sentences for all counts: ten years of concurrent incarceration, the first five without the possibility of parole, with five years of each suspended and each sentence subject to two years of probation upon release. Seivers filed a notice of appeal on June 1, 2009. We affirmed Seivers's convictions on October 6, 2010.

Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

On September 7, 2021, Seivers filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, challenging his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to object to an allegedly prejudicial voir dire; (2) failing to object to the court's reasonable doubt instruction; and (3) failing to address alleged Brady and discovery violations in a timely manner.^[3] The circuit court held a hearing on December 14, 2022 to consider Seivers's petition. At the hearing, the State argued that Seivers had waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to object to alleged Brady and discovery violations. The State contended that Seivers waived this claim by failing to pursue post-conviction relief and by failing to request a new trial under Maryland Rule 4-331.^[4] The State also asserted a defense of laches.

The circuit court rejected the State's argument that failure to pursue post-conviction relief constitutes waiver, but ultimately concluded that Seivers had waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to Brady and discovery violations. The court concluded that Seivers waived that claim by "his failure to pursue [that argument] in 2010 when he had the right to do that." The circuit court also concluded that Seivers's petition was barred by laches. Nevertheless, the court considered the merits of Seivers's petition and concluded that Seivers failed to meet his burden to show that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The court issued an oral ruling on December 14, 2022 denying Seivers's petition, and an order was entered denying the petition on December 30, 2022 to that effect. This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

On appeal, Seivers contends the circuit court erred in denying his coram nobis petition. He asserts that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to address Brady and discovery violations in a timely manner, alleging that this prejudiced the defense and deprived Seivers of due process. A writ of error coram nobis is an "equitable action originating in common law" whereby a petitioner seeks to collaterally challenge a conviction. Coleman v. State, 219 Md.App. 339, 354 (2014) (citing Moguel v. State, 184 Md.App. 465, 471 (2009)). It is "an 'extraordinary remedy' justified 'only under circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice.'" State v. Smith, 443 Md. 572, 597 (2015) (quoting Skok v. State, 361 Md. 52, 72 (2000)) (emphasis in original). Coram nobis relief may be available for "a convicted person who is not incarcerated and not on parole or probation, who is suddenly faced with a significant collateral consequence of his or her conviction ...." Skok, supra, 361 Md. at 78. This court reviews a circuit court's decision to grant or deny coram nobis relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Rich, 454 Md....