Wallace v. State

CHARLES EDWARD WALLACE v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 46-2020

Court of Appeals of Maryland

August 16, 2021

Argued: April 9, 2021.

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No 02-K-10-002013.

Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran JJ.

OPINION

Hotten, J.

An altercation between Petitioner, Charles Wallace ("Wallace"), and a person waiting to purchase drugs from someone else, ended when the would-be purchaser was shot in the arm and chest. Wallace was subsequently arrested and later convicted, by a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, of attempted second-degree murder, first- and second-degree assault, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, possession of a regulated firearm after previously having been convicted of a crime of violence, and reckless endangerment. At trial, Wallace raised a defense of mistaken identity, claiming that he was not the shooter. The court imposed a thirty-year sentence for the attempted second-degree murder count, a consecutive twenty-year sentence for use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence (the first five years without the possibility of parole), a concurrent five-year sentence for possession of a firearm after being convicted of a crime of violence (without the possibility of parole), and merged the remaining convictions for purposes of sentencing. Wallace appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed in an unreported opinion. Wallace v. State, No. 557, Sept. Term, 2012 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 11, 2013).

In 2018, Wallace petitioned for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel based on: failing to object to an erroneous jury instruction; conceding the admissibility of other crimes evidence; and failing to object to the circuit court's prejudicial instructions to the jury regarding the firearm offense. The State conceded that Wallace merited a new trial for trial counsel's error regarding the erroneous jury instruction, but argued that the remaining convictions should be upheld because the other alleged errors did not qualify as ineffective assistance. Following a hearing, the post- conviction court granted Wallace's petition and awarded a new trial on all counts, in part due to the cumulative effect of trial counsel's errors which constituted ineffective assistance.

The State appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed the post-conviction court's order and remanded for a new trial solely on the attempted second-degree murder charge. The intermediate appellate court determined that the erroneous jury instruction did not taint the jury's findings on the other convictions; the circuit court had not erred in admitting the other crimes evidence; the circuit court's prejudicial instructions to the jury regarding the firearm charge, and defense counsel's lack of objection, did not taint the verdict; and the limited cumulative effect theory did not warrant a reversal of all the convictions. Thereafter, Wallace appealed to this Court, and we granted certiorari, Wallace v. State, 471 Md. 520, 242 A.3d 1117 (2020), to address the following questions presented:

1. When reviewing whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, is it proper for a reviewing court to evaluate prejudice by determining whether deficient performance would have been ameliorated had the error been brought to the [circuit] court's attention?

2. Did [the Court of Special Appeals] err in advising post-conviction courts that the cumulative effect theory-i.e., the theory that prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668[, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), ] may be found by considering the collective impact of multiple instances of deficient performance-has "exceedingly narrow" application?

3. Did [the Court of Special Appeals] err in holding that defense counsel's failure to object to an erroneous instruction on attempted second-degree murder required the reversal of only that conviction, that defense counsel did not prejudice Petitioner when she failed to object to the disclosure to the jury that Petitioner had previously been convicted of a crime of violence, and/or that trial counsel's failure to object to alleged bad-acts/other-crimes evidence constituted neither deficient performance nor conduct prejudicing Petitioner?

For the reasons expressed below, we shall affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

Factual & Procedural Background

On September 25, 2010, Steven Freeman purchased narcotics on three separate occasions in Annapolis. At approximately five o'clock in the morning, while waiting for a prearranged seller to arrive for his third purchase, Freeman noticed Wallace approaching. Freeman had known Wallace for about a decade, as Wallace had previously attempted to sell him drugs multiple times. The relationship between Wallace and Freeman was acrimonious, and nearly seven years before this incident, Wallace had slashed Freeman's tire after Freeman refused to purchase drugs from him. Freeman, who has struggled with substance abuse for nearly fifteen years, believed that Wallace sold fake drugs.

Wallace, accompanied by another individual, approached Freeman's vehicle and inquired whether Freeman "needed something." Freeman informed Wallace that he had already planned on meeting someone else and was not interested in purchasing fake drugs from Wallace. Wallace became argumentative and aggressive. According to Freeman, Wallace pulled out a firearm as he began walking away, turned back to Freeman and said "well, take this, then," before he shot Freeman once in the arm. As Freeman began driving away, Wallace shot him a second time in the chest. Freeman thereafter contacted OnStar, ^[1]and stated that "[J]unior"-the name that Freeman knew Wallace by-had shot him.

Conviction and First Appeal

Wallace was arrested and subsequently indicted in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on ten counts: attempted murder in the first-degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first-degree, assault in the second degree, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a regulated firearm after previously having been convicted of a crime of violence, possession of a regulated firearm after previously having been convicted of a disqualifying crime, and reckless endangerment. State v. Wallace, 247 Md.App. 349, 353, 236 A.3d 735, 737 (2020). At trial, the State introduced into evidence a shirt worn by Wallace on the night of the shooting which, according to the State's forensic expert, contained traces of gunshot residue. Id. at 356, 236 A.3d at 739. The jury also considered testimony from the crime lab technician who responded to the scene, other forensic experts and witnesses, Wallace's father and girlfriend, and Freeman.

Wallace motioned for judgment of acquittal on the concealed weapon charge, which the circuit court granted, and the State nolle prossed the charge of use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. The jury acquitted Wallace of attempted first-degree murder, but convicted him of the remaining offenses. Thereafter, the court sentenced Wallace

to a term of thirty years' imprisonment for attempted second-degree murder, a consecutive term of twenty years' imprisonment (the first five without the possibility of parole) for use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and a concurrent term of five years' imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, for possession of a regulated firearm after previously having been convicted of a crime of violence, merging the remaining convictions for sentencing purposes.

Id. at 353-54, 236 A.3d at 737-38. Wallace appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed in an unreported opinion. Wallace v. State, No. 557, Sept. Term, 2012 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 11, 2013).

Post-conviction Proceedings

Wallace filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on January 3 2018, alleging that trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in three instances: "(1) failing to object to [his] prior bad acts evidence; (2) failing to take appropriate action to limit the damage caused by the jury learning of the nature of [his] prior convictions; and (3) failing to object to the attempted second-degree murder jury instruction that was given at trial." As a result, Wallace requested that his convictions be vacated and that a new trial be granted. On January 12, 2018, the State filed an initial answer to the petition, denying the allegations. On July 26, 2018, the State filed a supplemental response to the petition conceding the jury instruction error, but disputing Wallace's other allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

A post-conviction hearing was held on March 6, 2019. On June 12, 2019, the post-conviction court granted Wallace's petition, and later issued an accompanying memorandum opinion, reflecting that trial counsel's failure to object to the erroneous jury instruction on the attempted second-degree murder charge was deficient, and resulted in prejudice to Wallace's defense. The court found that trial counsel's failure to object to the admission of the slashed tire incident as prior bad acts evidence constituted a permissible trial strategy and was not deficient. Additionally, the court determined that trial counsel's failure to object to the admission of Wallace's prior conviction for a crime of violence was deficient. Finally the court found that "[t]he combination of the three allegations described above, the deficient jury instruction^[], the failure to object to prior bad acts evidence, and the failure to object to the prior crime of violence...