Watson v. State, 2183

WILLIAM HENRY WATSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 2183

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

February 4, 2021

Circuit Court for Wicomico County

Case No: 22-K-00-001549

UNREPORTED

Fader, C.J., Arthur, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

PER CURIAM

*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.

William Henry Watson, appellant, appeals a decision of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County denying his petition for a writ of actual innocence without a hearing. For the reasons to be discussed, we shall affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Watson's Trial

Following a 2001 jury trial, Mr. Watson was convicted of attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, and a host of related offenses stemming from two robberies, the first occurring on September 5, 2000 and the second two days later. The September 5^th attempted robbery was carried out by Kevin Moses, who attempted to rob a man using a pay phone located outside the Beverage Barn in Salisbury. When the man indicated he had no money, Mr. Moses shot him. The second robbery, at a High's store, was also perpetrated by Mr. Moses. Mr. Moses was driven to and from both robberies by Mr. Watson. A third individual, Anthony Badger, was also present in the get-away car and was implicated as the person who had given Mr. Moses the handgun used in the robberies. Mr. Moses pled guilty to first-degree assault, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, attempted armed robbery, and armed robbery. In exchange, the State placed other charges on the stet docket. The stetwas conditioned on Mr. Moses "testif[ing] truthfully if called as a witness for the State" in the trials of Mr. Watson and Mr. Badger.¹,²

Mr. Moses testified for the State at Mr. Watson's trial that he was recruited by Mr. Watson to participate in the robberies. He also related that Mr. Watson had driven him to both the Beverage Barn and the High's store to carry out those robberies and that after the High's robbery, he gave the money he had taken from the cash drawer to Mr. Watson. He admitted that he was the hold-up man for both the robberies and the person who had shot the victim outside the Beverage Barn. Mr. Moses testified that, prior to the September 5^th and 7^th robberies, he had accompanied Mr. Watson in "scoping out" other businesses and individuals to rob. And he testified that it was Mr. Watson's idea to rob Shore Stop, just prior to the robbery outside the Beverage Barn, but when Mr. Moses entered the store to commit the crime, he "froze up" and "chickened out."

In a statement Mr. Watson gave to the police, which was admitted into evidence at his trial, he admitted that he had driven Mr. Moses to the Beverage Barn and to High's, but he denied knowing that Mr. Moses intended to commit a crime.

As noted, the jury found Mr. Watson guilty of attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, and relatedoffenses. At sentencing, held four months later, the State first informed the court that Mr. Moses had been sentenced the day before to 50 years' imprisonment and then urged the court to "sentence William Watson to at least the same sentence that Kevin Moses received, if not more, because William Watson was the ring leader of this gang" and "was the person who solicited Kevin Moses to commit these robberies." The court sentenced Mr. Watson to a total term of 49 years' imprisonment.³

Petition For Writ of Actual Innocence

In 2019, Mr. Watson, representing himself, filed a petition for writ of actual innocence "and/or" motion to reopen a closed post-conviction proceeding.⁴ His claim of "newly discovered" evidence consisted of his allegations that (1) the prosecutor had "withheld and suppressed an extrajudicial statement" made by Mr. Moses and (2) the prosecutor "withheld and suppressed the mental health/psychiatric condition" of Mr. Moses.

As for the first allegation, Mr. Watson asserted that, in a conversation with Mr. Badger six years after his trial, he had learned that Mr. Moses, in interviews with the prosecutor prior to his trial, had "implicat[ed]" Mr. Watson "in numerous uncharged 'other crimes/prior bad acts.'" He maintained that those statements had been shared with Mr.Badger at the time, but withheld from him, and the prosecutor "in fact use[d] the withheld statement containing prior crimes evidence (given to him by . . . Moses) at [his] trial." He maintained that, the "suppressed" statements put him "and his defense counsel at a tremendous disadvantage during [his] trial." Mr. Watson cited excerpts from his trial where Mr. Moses testified that he and Mr. Watson had scoped out individuals and businesses to rob prior to the incidents at the Beverage Barn and High's. He maintained that, if he had known about the statements prior to trial, he "would have been able to refute the allegations to show that the State's main witness Kevin Moses was indeed lying." Mr. Watson admitted that "the withheld statement may not have contained any useful 'exculpatory evidence,'" but he asserted that "if the statement was timely disclosed and used properly, [his] defense counsel could have impeached Kevin Moses's testimony by showing evidence to counter Moses implicating [him] in 'other crimes evidence.'" In the alternative, he stated that he "could have entered into a plea agreement" with the State, as Mr. Badger had done. Finally, Mr. Watson maintained that this "evidence could not have been discovered" in time to move for a new trial because the prosecutor "reduced" the statements to "notes" characterized as attorney work product.

As for the second allegation of "newly discovered evidence," Mr. Watson claimed that, nearly 14 years after his trial, he learned that Mr. Moses suffered from a "mental health condition" and was taking the "prescription drug Haldol" at the time he testified at his trial. Mr. Watson relied on Mr. Moses's own petition for post-conviction relief in which he had alleged that the drug had rendered him incapable of entering a guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily because it made him "woozy," "tired," and "incompetent" and he justwanted to get the case "over with." And Mr. Watson cited excerpts from Mr. Moses's post-conviction hearing where his counsel mentioned that Mr. Moses had been "on Haldol, which is a psychiatric disorder type of drug since December 2000" and "he was given that particular drug [ ] because since childhood . . . he has been hearing voices throughout his life."⁵ Mr. Watson also cited excerpts from Mr. Moses's sentencing hearing during which Mr. Moses's counsel informed the court that his client "feels that he's not thinking clearly and has not for a long period of time" and "believes he has some underlying mental health issues."

Mr. Watson further asserted that, during the prosecutor's investigation of his case, the prosecutor had met with Mr. Moses several times and during that time period had learned that Mr. Moses "had been diagnosed with some form of mental illness" for which he had been "prescribed an anti-psychotic medication." He then maintained that the prosecutor "was legally obligated to provide him with Kevin Moses's mental illness information," but he had not done so. Mr. Watson claimed that he only learned of Mr. Moses's mental health condition in 2014 during a conversation "with an associate or family member" of Mr. Moses.

The State opposed the petition, pointing out that the first allegation of suppressed "other crimes evidence" was considered and rejected in Mr. Watson's post-conviction proceeding and maintained that the allegation relating to Mr. Moses's mental health condition was "impeaching evidence at best." The circuit court found "no merit" to Mr. Watson's "post-conviction claims" and denied the request to reopen the post-conviction proceeding. The court also denied the petition for writ of actual innocence, after concluding that Mr. Watson "has failed to meet the essential requirements" of the actual innocence statute, "most notably, that the allegations would create a substantial or significant possibility that the result [of his trial] might have been different."

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Watson argues that the circuit court erred in denying, without the benefit of a hearing, his petition for writ of actual innocence and his motion to reopen a closed post-conviction proceeding. The denial of the petition for writ of actual innocence, however, is the only ruling properly before us. In order to seek appellate review of the decision denying the motion to reopen the post-conviction case, Mr. Watson was required to file a timely application for leave to appeal, which he did not. See Md. Code Ann., Criminal Procedure § 7-109(a).

I.

Certain convicted persons may file a petition for writ of actual innocence "based on newly discovered evidence." See Crim. Proc. § 8-301; Md. Rule 4-332. "Actual innocence" means that "the defendant did not commit the crime or offense for which he or she was convicted." Smallwood v. State, 451 Md. 290, 313 (2017).

In pertinent part, the statute provides:

(a) A person charged by indictment or criminal information with a crime triable in circuit court and convicted of that crime may, at any time, file a petition for writ of actual innocence in the circuit court for the county in which the conviction was imposed if the person claims that there is newly discovered evidence that:

(1) creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different, as that standard has been judicially determined; and

(2) could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Maryland Rule 4-331.

***

(g) A petitioner in a proceeding under this section has the burden of proof.

Crim....