Brown v. State

• Docket Number: 1384-2021
• Decision Date: 07 June 2023
• Parties: MARC CHRISTOPHER BROWN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

1

MARC CHRISTOPHER BROWN v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1384-2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland^[**]

June 7, 2023

Circuit Court for Charles County CaseNo. C-08-CR-20-000020

Wells C.J., Berger, Beachley, JJ.

OPINION^[*]

Berger, J.

A jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Charles County found Marc Christopher Brown, appellant, guilty of home invasion first-degree burglary, kidnapping, robbery, false imprisonment, second-degree assault, unlawful taking of an automobile, theft of property having a value of at least $1,500 but less than $25,000, credit card theft, identity fraud to obtain U.S. currency having a value of at least $100 but less than $1,500, malicious destruction of property having a value less than $1,000, second-degree burglary, and malicious destruction of property (belonging to a second victim) having a value less than $1,000.The circuit court imposed aggregate sentences of 75 years' imprisonment.

Brown, pro se, noted this appeal, raising six claims:

I.Whether appellant was denied due process on the ground of "facts set forth and information provided" in his "Motion to Dismiss" and "Petition for Uniform Postconviction Relief[.]"

II.Whether appellant was denied due process because the prosecutor"willfully lied about"appellant's theory of defense during closing argument.

III.Whether appellant was denied due process because the prosecution"used fabricated evidence to support its case and the [trial] judge [did not] intervene[.]"

IV.Whether appellant was denied a fair trial because "arresting detectives failed to collect surveillance video in bad faith and lied on the record[.]"

V.Whether appellant was denied a fair trial because a police witness "changed his statement" as to whether he had stepped on an envelope that was in evidence.

VI.Whether appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

Because we find no merit in any of these claims and conclude that several of them are not preserved for our review, we affirm the judgments.

BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2019, Brown burglarized the home of Uchenna Okezie in Waldorf.When Ms. Okezie arrived home from work that evening and entered her home, the burglary was in progress, and Brown bound her hands and feet and forced her into her car.With Ms. Okezie in the passenger seat of her own car, Brown traveled to several automated teller machines ("ATMs") and withdrew cash from her bank account.He then left Ms. Okezie on the side of a road in Accokeek, in Prince George's County, bound and gagged.

Brown returned to Waldorf in Ms. Okezie's car, where he attempted to steal cash from an ATM inside the AMF bowling alley by backing up through the glass entrance doors.He subsequently drove Ms. Okezie's car to a wooded area near Crain Highway in Prince George's County, where he abandoned it; it was discovered several weeks later, on December 28, 2019.The car had significant damage to the rear, and its rear windshield and one of the other back windows were broken out.Pieces of broken glass were found "on the area behind the rear seats."

The day after the attack, on December 12, 2019, Brown was observed at a welding supply store, where he was arrested on open warrants.^[1] A search incident to arrest yielded $100 cash in $20 denominations on his person (consistent with cash disbursed in ATMs), a bookbag containing pieces of broken glass, an all-day VanGO bus pass, a laptop computer, and two USB flash drives.That evidence ultimately connected Brown to the crimes at issue in this case.

In January 2020, an indictment was filed, in the Circuit Court for Charles County, charging Brown with fifteen offenses: (1) home invasion; (2) first-degree burglary; (3) first-degree assault; (4) kidnapping; (5) robbery; (6) false imprisonment; (7) second-degree assault; (8) unlawful taking of an automobile; (9) theft of property having a value of at least $1,500 but less than $25,000; (10) credit card theft; (11) identity fraud to obtain U.S. currency having a value of at least $100 but less than $1,500; (12) malicious destruction of property, belonging to Ms. Okezie, having a value less than $1,000; (13) second-degree burglary; (14) malicious destruction of property, belonging to AMF lanes bowling alley, having a value less than $1,000; and (15) wearing and carrying a concealed dangerous weapon on the person.

Shortly afterward, Maryland courts(and their counterparts throughout the United States) sharply curtailed operations because of the COVID pandemic, leading to delays in bringing cases to trial.Brown initially was represented by a public defender, but, several months prior to trial, Brown moved to dismiss counsel.After the circuit court found no meritorious reason for discharging counsel, the court granted Brown's motion.^[2] Two months later, the matter proceeded to a week-long jury trial, during which Brown represented himself.The State called more than 40 witnesses and introduced dozens of exhibits into evidence.After deliberating approximately one hour, the jury found Brown guilty of all thirteen charges that were submitted to the jury.^[3]

Brown filed two post-trial motions, a self-styled "Motion to Dismiss" and a petition for postconviction relief.The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss and deferred ruling on the postconviction petition"following [the] outcome of any appeal[.]"The circuit court sentenced Brown to aggregate terms of 75 years' imprisonment.^[4] This appeal followed.^[5]

Additional facts are included where pertinent to discussion of the issues.

DISCUSSION

I.

Brown contends that he was denied due process on the ground of "facts set forth and information provided" in his "Motion to Dismiss" and "Petition for Uniform Postconviction Relief[.]"According to Brown, he was denied "fundamental fairness and equal protection after claims were raised" in his post-trial motions, but the circuit court did not dismiss the case, "despite substantial threat of prejudice."

This claim is completely without merit.There is no such vehicle, generally, as a post-trial motion to dismiss."[D]ismissal of charges for prosecutorial misconduct is an extreme sanction," which "should be used sparingly, if at all."Smith v. State, 255 Md.App. 544, 570(2022)(quotation marks and citations omitted), cert. granted, 482 Md. 534(2023)."Even in the situation where a defendant shows willful misconduct by the State, dismissal is appropriate only when: (1) the misconduct results in irreparable prejudice; and (2) no less drastic alternative is available."^[6]Id. at 576.That standard is not even remotely met here.

Brown fares no better if, as the State suggests in its brief, we construe his post-trial motion to dismiss as a motion for new trial under Rule 4-331(a).Brown's motion raised the same claims he raises now, on appeal, and denominates as Claims B, C, and D.As we explain infra, none of those claims has any merit.Because we review a circuit court's decision whether to grant a motion for new trial under Rule 4-331(a) for abuse of discretion, Williams v. State, 462 Md. 335, 344(2019),^[7] it follows that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown's motion.

Brown's post-trial, pre-appeal postconviction petition is not ripe for adjudication, given that the circuit court has not yet ruled on it.Moreover, Maryland Code(2001, 2018 Repl. Vol.), Criminal Procedure Article ("CP"), § 7-109(a), provides that "a person aggrieved by"a circuit court's denial of a postconviction petition"may apply to the [Appellate Court of Maryland] for leave to appeal the order."Under these circumstances, we do not have appellate jurisdiction over this claim because Brown seeks to circumvent the requirement to seek leave to appeal.As the State further points out, Brown is free to pursue his postconviction claim in the circuit court following the issuance of the mandate in this appeal, and in the event he does not prevail, he is required to seek leave to appeal under CP § 7-109(a) if he wishes further review.

II.

Before addressing Brown's next claim, we set forth additional facts.Because Brown drove Ms. Okezie's car through the glass entrance doors at the AMF bowling alley, there were shards of broken glass strewn throughout the vestibule of the bowling alley near the entrance.Some of that glass was recovered by police evidence technicians and subsequently analyzed by a forensic scientist.Furthermore, when Brown was arrested on open warrants, the bookbag he was carrying was seized as evidence, and upon inspection, it was discovered to contain glass fragments similar to those recovered from the vestibule of the bowling alley as well as from Ms. Okezie's car.

Brown contends that he was denied due process because the prosecutor"willfully lied about" his theory of defense during closing argument.According to Brown, the prosecutor misrepresented the facts concerning evidence of broken glass recovered from his bookbag.

He impliedly recognizes that this claim is unpreserved.First, Brown asks that we excuse his failure to lodge a contemporaneous objection on the ground of his "inexperience[]" and that we deem his subsequent closing argument, challenging the prosecutor's version of events, sufficient to preserve the issue.Second, Brown asks that we review for plain error.

The statement by the prosecutor that is the focus of Brown's complaint is as follows:

[The glass] was provided to the FBI.You heard the expert from the, or the FBI expert, talk about glass that was recovered from the defendant.The glass that was recovered from the defendant's bookbag, which is what they were primarily interested in, is a match, is a match for the AMF bowling alley glass, it is a match for also the car glass.Why is the car glass so

...