Caldwell v. State

• Decision Date: 10 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 0524,0524
• Parties: ROBERT EUGENE CALDWELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

ROBERT EUGENE CALDWELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 0524

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2015

June 10, 2016

UNREPORTED

Eyler, Deborah S., Berger, Arthur, JJ.

Opinion by Berger, J.

*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.

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, appellant, Robert Eugene Caldwell ("Caldwell"), was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit second-degree burglary. One count was related to conspiracy to commit second-degree burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. The second count was related to conspiracy to commit second degree burglary of Bella Furniture, which shares a warehouse with the Alkaline Water Company. The jury, however, acquitted Caldwell of seven other charges. For the charges upon which he was convicted, the court sentenced Caldwell to 15 years' incarceration for his conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. Additionally, Caldwell received a concurrent sentence of 15 years' incarceration with all but five years suspended for his conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary of Bella Furniture.

On appeal, Caldwell presents three issues for our review,¹ which we rephrase and reorder as follows:

1. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Caldwell's motions for a mistrial.

2. Whether Caldwell's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining one of his convictions for conspiracy is adequately preserved for appellate review.

3. Whether the circuit court erred in convicting and sentencing Caldwell for two counts of conspiracy when only one unit of prosecution was argued to the jury.

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm in part, and remand the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County with instructions for the circuit court to vacate one of Caldwell's conspiracy convictions and re-sentence the appellant.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Alkaline Water Company was a tenant in a warehouse located at 9212 Hampton Overlook, Capitol Heights, Maryland. The Alkaline Water Company had a loading dock door for egress from the warehouse. In addition, the Alkaline Water Company's portion of the warehouse shared an interior wall with the Bella Furniture company.

On March 22, 2014 Malik Salam ("Salam"), Kenneth Snowden ("Snowden"), and Caldwell convened for the purpose of appropriating some "high dollar furniture" from Bella Furniture. On that day, the three drove a blue Toyota Camry from Alexandria, Virginia, to the warehouse occupied by the Alkaline Water Company and Bella Furniture. When they arrived, Salam and Snowden exited the vehicle and stole a box truck. Salam and Snowden then drove the box truck to the loading dock door of the Alkaline Water Company's portionof the warehouse. Meanwhile, Caldwell parked the blue Toyota Camry in a nearby used car lot where he was to serve as the lookout.

Detective Joseph Pugliese of the Howard County Police Department had been investigating Snowden and Caldwell. A global positioning system affixed to one of the defendant's vehicles, and information gleaned from tracking one of the defendant's cell phones--both obtained by means of a valid search warrant--led the Howard County officers' investigation to the warehouse in Prince George's County. Notably, the specific details involving Howard County's investigation of Snowden and Caldwell were suppressed at trial, but the State was permitted to elicit testimony indicating that Howard County officers were in Prince George's County for the purpose of conducting an investigation. That evening, Detective Pugliese was disguised as an electrician in a bucket truck. Detective Pugliese testified that he observed Caldwell driving the blue Toyota Camry drive into a parking lot and position itself near a white box truck for approximately three minutes and then drive away.

Salam and Snowden then drove their stolen white box truck and backed it up against the loading dock door of the Alkaline Water Company. The two breached the water company's portion of the warehouse and acquired a forklift inside the warehouse. Snowden then used the forklift to drive through the shared wall that separated the Alkaline Water Company from Bella Furniture. After breaching Bella Furniture's portion of the warehouse, an alarm was triggered causing Salam and Snowden to retreat back to Caldwell in the blue Toyota Camry where the three waited for approximately one-half hour.

Thereafter, Salam and Snowden returned to the warehouse where they proceeded to remove furniture from Bella Furniture, through the demolished wall, and onto or near the stolen white box truck. While the two were loading furniture, they received a call from Caldwell's phone that was immediately disconnected. Snowden then returned the call which was answered by someone other than Caldwell. Snowden and Salam then fled. As Snowden and Salam fled, the police arrived and apprehended Salam. Meanwhile, Caldwell was apprehended in the blue Toyota Camry at the used car lot.

Snowden and Caldwell were tried together, and Salam testified as a witness against them both. After a four-day trial, a jury found Caldwell guilty of two counts of conspiracy. One count was for conspiracy to commit second-degree burglary of the Alkaline Water Company, and the second was conspiracy to commit second-degree burglary of Bella Furniture. Caldwell was acquitted of all other charges. On May 8, 2014, the court sentenced Caldwell to 15 years' incarceration for his conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. Additionally, Caldwell received a concurrent sentence of 15 years' incarceration with all but five years suspended for his conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary of Bella Furniture. This timely appeal followed. Additional facts will be discussed as necessitated by the issues presented.

DISCUSSION

Caldwell presents three allegations of error. Caldwell contends that the circuit court erred by denying Caldwell's motion for a mistrial when State's witnesses discussed evidence that had been suppressed. Additionally, Caldwell asserts that the evidence was insufficientto sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit a burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. Finally, Caldwell alleges that the imposition of two convictions and sentences for conspiracy violates the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The State contends that the circuit court did not err in denying Caldwell's motion for a mistrial, and that his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved. The State, however, agrees that it was improper for Caldwell to receive two separate sentences for conspiracy, but that both convictions should be affirmed. We shall address these issues in turn.

I. The Circuit Court Did Not Err by Failing to Declare a Mistrial.

Caldwell asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to declare a mistrial when the State's witnesses testified in violation of the Court's order limiting the scope of the officer's testimony. The State counters that the testimony given was not in violation of the court's order, and even if it was, it was within the court's discretion to deny Caldwell's motion for a mistrial. We agree with the State.

"We review a court's ruling on a mistrial motion under the abuse of discretion standard." Nash v. State, 439 Md. 53, 66-67 (2014).

"'Abuse of discretion' . . . has been said to occur 'where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court,' or when the court acts 'without reference to any guiding rules or principles.' It has also been said to exist when the ruling under consideration 'appears to have been made on untenable grounds,' when the ruling is 'clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court,' when the ruling is 'clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying a just result,' when the ruling is 'violative of fact and logic,' or when it constitutes an 'untenable judicial act that defies reason and works an injustice.'"

Id. at 67 (quoting North v. North, 102 Md. App. 1, 13-14 (1994) (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted)). In Nash, supra, Judge Harrell, writing for the Court of Appeals, articulated that:

Regarding the range of a trial judge's discretion in ruling on a mistrial motion, reviewing appellate courts afford generally a wide berth. See Alexis [v. State], 437 Md. 457, 478, 87 A.3d 1243, 1255 [(2014)] (noting that the range of a trial judge's discretion when assessing the merits of a mistrial motion, as with other decisions "[i]n handling the progress of a trial," is "'very broad and [his or her ruling] will rarely be reversed,'" as compared to other circumstances in which "'the discretionary range is far more narrow'") (quoting Canterbury Riding Condo. [v. Chesapeake Investors, Inc.], 66 Md. App. [635,] 648, 505 A.2d [858,] 864 [(1986)]). Competing forces affect potentially the range of discretion with respect to the particular mistrial motion in this case. On the one hand, an allegation of juror bias or misconduct may implicate a defendant's constitutional right to a fair and impartial verdict. See Dillard v. State, 415 Md. 445, 454-55, 3 A.3d 403, 408-09 (2010); Jenkins v. State, 375 Md. 284, 299-300, 825 A.2d 1008, 1017-18 (2003). On the other hand, declaring a mistrial is an extreme remedy not to be ordered lightly. See Burks v. State, 96 Md. App. 173, 187, 624 A.2d 1257, 1265 (1993) ("It is rather an extreme sanction that sometimes must be resorted to when such overwhelming prejudice has occurred that no other remedy will suffice to cure the prejudice."); Ezenwa v. State, 82 Md. App. 489, 518, 572 A.2d 1101, 1115 (1990) ("Because [a mistrial] is an extraordinary measure, it should only

...