Wheeler v. State

SALMON, J. Wayne David Wheeler was convicted by a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and use of a handgun in commission of a crime of violence. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction and a consecutive twenty-year term for the handgun offense. The second-degree murder conviction was merged for purposes of sentencing. Wheeler noted a timely appeal and presents two questions: I. Did the circuit court err in denying his motion to dismiss, which was based on an [alleged] violation of the Hicks rule?

II

Was the evidence sufficient to sustain appellant’s convictions? We answer appellant’s first question in the affirmative and reverse the judgment of the circuit court. Therefore, we need not reach Question II. I. BACKGROUND During the early morning hours of August 2, 2002, an off-duty Prince George’s County police officer patrolling in the area of the Forest Creek apartments in Prince George’s County heard gunshots, then observed a minivan traveling away from the Forest Creek apartment complex at a high rate of speed.

The officer pursued the van, which then crashed. Three men ran from the minivan. They were chased on foot by the police, but they evaded immediate capture. Police investigation proved that the minivan had been stolen.

Approximately four hours later, the Prince George’s County Police Department received a report of a strange man leaving a backyard in a residential neighborhood not far from the scene of the shooting. Police officers responded to the area and saw and stopped appellant, who had a swollen lip. A ²¹³ police officer who had taken part in the earlier foot pursuit identified appellant as one of the men who had run from the minivan. Meanwhile, one victim died as a result of the shooting at the Forest Creek Apartments complex; a second victim was shot in the leg and survived; a third person was fired upon but escaped injury.

Testing of a shotgun found in the minivan that crashed proved to be the murder weapon. A 9 mm handgun was recovered by the police a short distance from the location where the minivan crashed. That handgun was also proven to have been used in the shootings at the Forest Creek apartment complex. The State’s theory of the case was that appellant was the getaway driver of the minivan that crashed but was not one of the shooters.

On September 5, 2002, the State filed an indictment against appellant. Defense counsel entered his appearance for appellant on September 23, 2002. Consequently, the 180-day period for commencing trial set forth in Section 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Annotated Code (2001) and Maryland Rule 4-271 expired on March 22, 2003. On December 30, 2002, the State filed its discovery without request and advised defense counsel that it intended to present deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) evidence against appellant at trial.

The State hoped to prove that appellant drove the minivan by analyzing DNA from the vehicle, as well as various items recovered in the vehicle, including: the driver’s side air bag, the passenger’s side air bag, a spot of blood on the steering column, a neoprene mask, a cigarette, a bandana, and a T-shirt. On January 17, 2003, more than five months after the shootings, the State filed a motion in which it sought to obtain a DNA sample from appellant for comparison. The motion was promptly granted by the circuit court. A DNA sample was taken from appellant in early February 2003.

The DNA analysis of some, but not all, of the items in the minivan was first attempted by the Prince George’s County Crime Laboratory on February 14, 2003. The items not ²¹⁴ initially tested were the cigarette, the bandana, and the T-shirt. DNA profiles were obtained from the passenger side air bag, the blood on the steering column, and the neoprene mask, but none of the DNA found on those items matched appellant’s. On February 27, 2003, the prosecutor contacted defense counsel and informed him that she had received the results of the DNA analysis, but due to the fact that none of the DNA profiles matched appellant’s, she intended to request a continuance on February 28.

Due to inclement weather, the courthouse was closed on Friday, February 28, 2003. On Monday, March 3, 2003, the date set for trial, appellant appeared before the Honorable Ronald D. Schiff, who was assigned to try the case. The prosecutor requested a continuance for several reasons, one of which was to allow time for the remaining items recovered from the minivan to be subjected to a DNA test. After the prosecutor recounted her efforts to reach a plea agreement, the trial judge inquired: “The only reason you postponed the DNA testing was the hopes you would get a plea out of the case?” The prosecutor responded: No. We thought we were going to get a plea.

When no plea was forthcoming, then I said we’ll have to do DNA testing. [Defense counsel] said that’s fine. He led me to believe that if it came back positive would be the impetus for him to force his client to make a plea. The prosecutor also told Judge Schiff that, at her direction, the laboratory did not test all the items recovered from the minivan. The prosecutor explained: We have limited resources, and we attempt to make judgments on what we think will be [the] more valuable items to be tested.

So clearly the driver’s side air bag, the passenger side air bag, and the blood on the steering column were the most likely sources in which we would be able to contain [sic] DNA. ²¹⁵ The prosecutor then offered this assessment of the State’s case in light of the negative DNA analysis: Now I find myself in the position that the report is not back yet. [The lab] gave me the test results. These will be the results, but there’s no report yet.... I have now DNA from three different people, none of which [sic] are the defendant. There are a number of things I need to do at this point.

It significantly hurts my case that I’ve got police officers who say they saw three different people get out of the minivan.... Because the State wants — the State doesn’t want to spend all of it’s [sic] resources and prosecute the defendant when there are two other people that are responsible for a murder. The defendant, we believe, is the driver of the vehicle. What we wanted all along was his cooperation in our prosecution.

I found out now he’s not the driver. At least from the DNA profile. So he’s not. Because we didn’t get DNA off the driver side air bag, he could still be the driver, he just didn’t leave any on the air bag. 1 let [defense counsel] know I will be asking for a postponement of this trial under the circumstances, and the circumstances are that from the very beginning we have been attempting to work out a plea.

No plea has been forthcoming. I felt that the DNA would sort of be the impetus that will sort of encourage the defendant to realize it’s to his advantage to cooperate with the State. But I’m not at that juncture today. The State then requested a continuance to test not only the remaining evidence recovered from the minivan, but also to obtain a DNA sample from the owner of the van.

The prosecutor also proffered that appellant’s cell mate had told the police the nicknames of the two individuals who did the shooting. One of the named individuals was incarcerated and the prosecutor wanted to obtain a DNA sample from that individual. ²¹⁶ Judge Schiff inquired: “What’s the Hicks date?” 1 The prosecutor replied (accurately) that nineteen days remained in the 180-day period. The prosecutor informed the court that it would take “[l]ess than a month” to test the bandana, the cigarette, and the T-shirt, but conceded that the new trial date would have to be beyond the 180-day limit because of her trial schedule. In response, defense counsel noted that appellant had been incarcerated since the date of the offense, August 2, 2002, that the plea negotiations were no reason for the State to have delayed the DNA testing, that the defense was prepared for trial, and that counsel’s schedule would not permit the setting of a new trial date before the middle or end of April.

Judge Schiff denied the State’s request for a continuance and expressly found that the prosecutor’s reasons for the continuance did not amount to good cause to go past the Hicks date. The prosecutor then told Judge Schiff that she “would need time this morning to decide what steps the State will take next.” Court was then recessed. An hour-and-a-half later, court reconvened, and the prosecutor stated: Your Honor, in light of the court’s decision denying the State’s request for continuance and in light of the fact there’s been an ongoing investigation, the ... case will be nol prossed. On April 22, 2003, the DNA testing was completed on the remaining items recovered from the minivan.

Appellant’s DNA was found on the T-shirt recovered on the driver’s side floorboard of the minivan. The State filed a new application for statement of charges, which resulted in appellant’s arrest on June 26, 2003, and his indictment two weeks later. ²¹⁷ Shortly after appellant was arrested for the second time, the prosecutor contacted the attorney from the public defender’s office who had previously represented appellant and determined that he was available for trial on July 28, 2003. Because the prosecutor believed that there still remained nineteen days in the original 180-day Hicks period, she tried to schedule the next trial date within nineteen days of appellant’s July 10, 2003, indictment. In other words, the prosecutor believed that the State could carry the nineteen days forward and apply them to the second prosecution.

The State filed an “EMERGENCY MOTION TO ADVANCE TRIAL DATE,” which asked for a July 28, 2003, trial date. The request was granted, but one week prior to trial, a member of the Public Defender’s Office telephoned the prosecutor and informed her that no one from the Office would be entering his or her appearance in the case before the trial date. Appellant appeared in court without counsel on July 28, 2003, and the case was postponed. Appellant then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging that, by entering a nol pros of the first indictment, the prosecutor had intentionally tried to circumvent the requirements of Section 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article and Rule 4-271.

On November 20, 2003, a hearing was held on the motion. The prosecutor who had entered the nol pros testified that on February 5, 2003, slightly less than a month prior to the March 3 trial date, she spoke with Meredith Monroe, who ran the Prince George’s County Police Department’s DNA Laboratory, to find out who had been assigned to the subject case. The prosecutor informed Monroe that she “had a trial date coming up ... and ... needed this matter to be analyzed on an expedited basis because they had not yet started to do anything.” On February 14, 2003, the prosecutor spoke with Julie Kempton, the person who would ultimately perform the DNA analysis, and informed Kempton that “time was really running short.” Kempton told the prosecutor that she had not yet begun the DNA analysis and that it would not be completed in ²¹⁸ time for trial. 2 The prosecutor and Kempton then discussed appellant’s alleged role as the driver of the minivan and, in light of Kempton’s belief that she would not be able to analyze all the items in time for trial, they “decided the only thing we could do then would be to pick which of the items she should focus her attention on.” The prosecutor then told Kempton what she thought the most valuable (or promising) pieces of evidence would be. The prosecutor also testified as to the plea negotiations.

Initially, she was approached by Ron Cooper, Esquire, who told her he thought he would be representing appellant. Cooper inquired if the State was “amenable to having the defendant’s cooperation.” The prosecutor answered in the affirmative. In her words, “we were very eager to have the defendant cooperate and tell us who the other two people in the car were, because, as I said previously, it was my suspicion that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle.” Cooper and the prosecutor had “significant discussions” regarding the necessary information for a plea agreement for Wheeler. Later, Cooper told the prosecutor that he had not been retained as expected.

Robert McGowan, of the Public Defender’s Office, entered his appearance in the case as appellant’s attorney on September 23, 2002. On October 29, 2002, the prosecutor went to McGowan’s office to discuss a possible plea. A “plea letter” dated October 30, from the prosecutor to McGowan, followed. In the prosecutor’s words, “then nothing happened [in] November.” In December, the prosecutor reviewed her notes and “just never got a sense that we were working towards resolving it by way of a plea.” The prosecutor added: “By December 30 there was no question in my mind that I was getting worried that this case was not going to be resolved by way of a plea, which is what I had anticipated.” All the items necessary to perform a DNA analysis, save for the oral swab DNA sample later taken from appellant, had been in the ²¹⁹ State’s possession since August 2, 2002, but according to the prosecutor, they were not tested because I believed that we were going to resolve this case by way of a plea in which [the defendant] would cooperate with the State and would let us know who the other two people were in the minivan, who I believe were the shooters.

When asked if it would have been possible on March 3, 2003, for Kempton to process the remaining items prior to March 22, 2003, the last day in the 180-day period, the prosecutor responded: I don’t believe so. My recollection is that ... I talked to [Kempton] after Judge Schiff denied my request for a continuance, I talked to her to see what if anything we could do, knowing we still had 19 days before Hicks expired, would we be able to get the other things analyzed and done in time. My recollection was that we would not be able to do so, and that’s what she told me, and I understood the difficulty that the DNA lab was having at that time.

The prosecutor testified that, when she nol prossed the charges against appellant, it was not her intent to circumvent the 180-day requirement. She stated: “My intention was to stop the trial proceedings against the defendant so we could finish up the DNA analysis that was currently being undertaken.” The prosecutor added: I believed there were 19 days left before Hicks would expire and I knew I would not be able to have the DNA analysis done before March 22.... So my intentions were to stop the trial at that point. In the prosecutor’s words, she believed that “[b]y stopping the prosecution it would necessarily stop the Hicks date.” Regarding the status of the State’s case against appellant on the date the nol pros was entered, the prosecutor stated: “We could not have gone forward on March 3.” The motions judge, without comment, denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the Hicks Rule. ²²⁰ Appellant’s trial under the second indictment commenced on January 20, 2004.

II

DISCUSSION Appellant claims that the nol pros entered by the prosecutor had the purpose or necessary effect of circumventing the requirement that he be brought to trial within 180 days. He also contends that the facts in his case are virtually identical to those in Ross v. State, 117 Md.App. 357 , 700 A.2d 282 (1997), and that the same result is required, i.e., that the charges against him be dismissed. The State contends that the nol pros was not entered with the purpose of circumventing the 180-day rule because the prosecutor held a “good faith” belief that, by stopping the prosecution, she would stop the 180-day period from running. The State also asserts that the “necessary effect” of the nol pros was not to circumvent the 180-day requirement because, in the absence of the nol pros, dismissal of the case was not a certainty.

In support of the claim that the dismissal “was not a certainty,” the State says: “Theoretically, the State could have tried Wheeler’s case with the evidence it had, including the police officer’s identification of appellant.” Nonetheless, the State concedes that the DNA analysis was “crucial” because the evidence of appellant’s role in the murder.was circumstantial and the DNA evidence would have confirmed appellant’s presence in the minivan. The State’s “theoretical” argument that on March 3, 2003,-it could have successfully prosecuted appellant without the DNA evidence is not supported by the record. As the prosecutor conceded at the motions hearing, “[w]e could not have gone forward [with trial against appellant] on March 3” — the original trial date. 3 ²²¹ The scheduling of trial dates in criminal proceedings is governed by Section 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article. 4 Section 6-103 reads: (a) Requirements for setting date. — (1) The date for trial of a criminal matter in the circuit court shall be set within 30 days after the earlier of: (i) the appearance of counsel; or (ii) the first appearance of the defendant before the circuit court, as provided in the Maryland Rules. (2) The trial date may not be later than 180 days after the earlier of those events.

(b) Change of date. — (1) For good cause shown, the county administrative judge or a designee of the judge may grant a change of the trial date in a circuit court: (i) on motion of a party; or (ii) on the initiative of the circuit court. (2) If a circuit court trial date is changed under paragraph (1) of this subsection, any subsequent changes of the trial date may only be made by the county administrative judge or that judge’s designee for good cause shown. (c) Court rules. — The Court of Appeals may adopt additional rules to carry out this section. Complimenting Section 6-103 is Maryland Rule 4-271, 5 which states, in relevant part: (a) Trial Date in Circuit Court.

(1) The date for trial in the circuit court shall be set within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the circuit court pursuant to Rule 4-213, and shall be not later than 180 days after the earlier of those events. When a case has been transferred from the District Court because of a demand for jury trial, and an ²²² appearance of counsel entered in the District Court was automatically entered in the circuit court pursuant to Rule 4-214(a), the date of the appearance of counsel for purposes of this Rule is the date the case was docketed in the circuit court. On motion of a party, or on the court’s initiative, and for good cause shown, the county administrative judge or that judge’s designee may grant a change of a circuit court trial date. If a circuit court trial date is changed, any subsequent changes of the trial date may be made only by the county administrative judge or that judge’s designee for good cause shown.

Section 6-103 and Rule 4-271 require that “[t]he trial date for a criminal case in the circuit court may not be later than 180 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or ... the first appearance of the defendant in circuit court.” State v. Akopian, 155 Md.App. 123, 138 , 841 A.2d 893 (2004) (citations omitted). This 180-day rule “is mandatory and dismissal of the criminal charges is the appropriate sanction for violation of that time period____” Ross v. State, 117 Md.App. 357, 364 , 700 A.2d 282 (1997) (citations omitted); see also State v. Hicks, 285 Md. 310, 318 , 403 A.2d 356 (1979) (same). The first time the Court of Appeals considered whether the State had improperly entered a nol pros in an effort to avoid the 180-day rule was in Curley v. State, 299 Md. 449 , 474 A.2d 502 (1984). In that case, the first trial date was set well within the 180-day period.

Thereafter, defense counsel’s request for a postponement was granted, but a new trial date was never set. On the final day of the 180-day time period, the State nol prossed the charges. Approximately three months later, the State filed a second criminal information charging Curley with the same offenses he had been charged with under the prior information. The trial court denied Curley’s motion to dismiss for violation of the Hicks rule.

The Court of Appeals held that when a circuit court criminal case is nol prossed, and the state later has the same charges refiled, the 180-day period for trial prescribed by § 591 and Rule 746 ordinarily ²²³ begins to run with the arraignment or first appearance of defense counsel under the second prosecution. If, however, it is shown that the nol pros had the purpose or the effect of circumventing the requirements of § 591 and Rule 746, the 180-day period will commence to ran with the arraignment or first appearance of counsel under the first prosecution. Curley, 299 Md. at 462 , 474 A.2d 502 (emphasis added). In applying that rule to the case before it, the Curley Court noted that the nol pros was entered on the final day for trial; therefore, it was too late to comply with the statute and rule.

Id. In addition, the defendant, his counsel, and witnesses were not present, and there was no reason for them to have been present as a new trial date had not been set. The Curley Court said: In reality, the prosecution had already lost this case under § 591 and Rule 746 when the nol pros was filed. Regardless of the prosecuting attorney’s motives, the necessary effect of the nol pros was an attempt to evade the dismissal resulting from, the failure to try the case within 180 days.

Curley, 299 Md. at 462-63 , 474 A.2d 502 (emphasis added). On the same day that Curley was decided, the Court filed its opinion in State v. Glenn, 299 Md. 464 , 474 A.2d 509 (1984). In Glenn , the prosecutor concluded that there was