Baines v. State
| Docket Number | A-13596,2753 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 2023 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER BRANDON BAINES, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Superior Court, Trial Court No. 3AN-18-02764 CR Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Michael L. Wolverton Judge.
David T. McGee, Attorney at Law, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges.
Christopher Brandon Baines was convicted, following a jury trial, of multiple crimes in connection with a series of car break-ins, including two counts of first-degree robbery, several counts of third-degree assault, one count of failure to stop at the direction of a peace officer, and one count of being a felon in possession of a concealable firearm. Baines was sentenced to a composite term of 14 years and 4 months to serve. Baines now appeals his convictions and sentence, raising three claims.
First, Baines argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support one of his convictions for first-degree robbery. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, was sufficient to support this conviction.
Second, Baines argues that the superior court erred in admitting evidence of two pretrial eyewitness identifications. In particular, Baines contends that, in assessing the reliability of the identifications, the superior court improperly relied on independent, corroborative evidence of his guilt. We agree with Baines that independent evidence of a defendant's guilt is not a proper consideration in evaluating the admissibility of an eyewitness identification. However, we ultimately conclude that any error in admitting the challenged identifications is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.
Finally, Baines contends that the superior court should have run a greater portion of his individual sentences concurrently with one another. For the reasons explained in this decision, we reject Baines's sentencing claims.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the superior court.
Underlying facts and proceedings
In March 2018, Todd Pulis was at his home in Anchorage, when he looked out the window and saw a man he did not recognize inside his vehicle, which was parked in front of his house. Pulis grabbed a gun and went outside to confront the man. By the time Pulis got outside, the man was no longer in Pulis's vehicle and had returned to his own vehicle - a gray truck. Pulis slowly approached the man, eventually standing about two feet away from the truck. The man was rummaging through various papers as Pulis watched.
Pulis initially yelled at the man, but the man did not react. Pulis again yelled, which caused the man in the truck to look up and point a gun at Pulis through the driver's window. Pulis retreated to the backside of the man's truck, took out his own gun, and shot three times into the man's backside right tire. The man then drove away.
Once the man had left, Pulis realized that everything in his vehicle's center console had been stolen. This included Pulis's car manual and registration, banking records, auto repair receipts, and various documents related to Pulis's healthcare.
The same day, Antonio Fullwood received a text from a neighbor telling him that it looked like someone was breaking into his car. Fullwood went outside, and saw someone in the driver's seat of his vehicle. Fullwood yelled at the man, but the man did not react. Fullwood tried opening his car door to remove the man, but the man pointed a gun at Fullwood. Fullwood backed away and yelled to his wife to call the police.
Fullwood saw the man leave Fullwood's car, walk to a nearby carport, and get into a gray truck. The police soon arrived and blocked the truck at the carport. But the man used his truck to push through the police blockade. The police - then on foot - had to move out of the way so that they would not be hit by the truck.
Shortly after the man escaped the officers, the police received a dispatch that someone matching the suspect's description had just been seen at a nearby shopping center. At trial, an employee from one of the stores in the shopping center testified that he saw a "fast moving truck with a blown out right tire" pull into the store's alleyway. The employee testified that a man exited the truck and told the employee that he had "just ditched them," and that "they were trying to get him and then he got away," which the employee assumed referred to the police.
Soon after, the police arrived at the shopping center and located a person matching the suspect's description. Officers pursued the suspect on foot, which led to a chase through one of the stores. The officers followed the suspect through the back exit of the store, where they ultimately apprehended him.
The police identified the apprehended suspect as Christopher Baines. Inside the abandoned gray truck in the shopping center parking lot was paperwork belonging to Pulis and paperwork belonging to Baines. The police discovered that this gray truck had been reported stolen.
In total, five different people - including Pulis and Fullwood - reported that someone had broken into their cars that day in the same general area.
After Baines was arrested, the police took both Pulis and Fullwood to the shopping center to see if they could identify whether Baines was the person who broke into their vehicles.[1] Pulis and Fullwood each engaged in a separate showup in which they positively identified Baines as the person who had broken into their vehicles and pointed a gun at them earlier that day.
The State charged Baines with over twenty counts. Prior to trial, Baines's attorney moved to exclude Pulis's and Fullwood's identifications of Baines. The attorney argued that the identifications were unreliable, namely because they were each conducted as a "showup" - i.e., an identification procedure in which a single suspect is presented to a witness for identification. The attorney further argued that other variables undermined the identifications' reliability, such as the witnesses' high stress levels during their initial interaction with the suspect, the witnesses' relatively short viewing duration, the fact that they were confronted with a gun when they initially saw the suspect, and the fact that the two witnesses were different races than Baines.
After holding an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied the motion to suppress the identifications. The court found that, although certain variables did undermine the identifications' reliability, there was nonetheless "overwhelming evidence" independent from Pulis's and Fullwood's identifications that Baines was the suspect. The court therefore concluded that Baines was "not substantially likely" to have been misidentified.
Following trial, a jury found Baines guilty of nineteen counts: (1) two counts of first-degree robbery (against Pulis and Fullwood); (2) six counts of third-degree assault (two of these counts, involving Pulis and Fullwood, merged with the first-degree robbery counts); (3) first-degree vehicle theft; (4) failure to stop at the direction of a peace officer; (5) two counts of fourth-degree criminal mischief; (6) first-degree criminal trespass; (7) three counts of second-degree criminal trespass; (8) reckless driving; (9) third-degree theft; and (10) fourth-degree theft.[2] After a brief bench trial, the court also found Baines guilty of third-degree misconduct involving weapons (felon in possession of a concealable firearm).[3]
The superior court sentenced Baines to a composite active sentence of 14 years and 4 months, with an additional 15 years suspended, and a 5-year term of probation.
This appeal followed.
Why we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Baines's first-degree robbery conviction involving Pulis
Baines first argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain his first-degree robbery conviction for his conduct relating to Pulis.
To establish Baines's guilt of first-degree robbery in this case, the State was required to prove that: (1) Baines committed second-degree robbery, and (2) in the course of committing that robbery or in immediate flight thereafter, Baines was armed with a deadly weapon, or represented by words or other conduct that he was so armed.[4] Baines does not contest that the State proved this second element - i.e., that Baines was armed with a deadly weapon (i.e., a firearm). Rather, Baines argues that the State failed to prove that Baines committed second-degree robbery. An individual commits second-degree robbery when, "in the course of taking or attempting to take property" from someone, that person "uses or threatens the immediate use of force" with the intent to "prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property or the retention of the property after taking."[5]
In this case, the State charged Baines with first-degree robbery under the theory that Baines brandished his gun with the intent to overcome resistance by Pulis so that Baines could retain the paperwork he had taken from Pulis's car. On appeal, Baines argues that the only property he took from Pulis's car was "worthless" paperwork, and accordingly, the State failed to prove that Baines used his gun to remain in possession of these valueless documents - i.e., to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking of the property. Rather, Baines argues that the evidence showed that he brandished his gun...
To continue reading
Request your trial