Charles Newman v. State

• Decision Date: 24 January 2017
• Docket Number: No. 1472,1472
• Parties: CHARLES NEWMAN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

CHARLES NEWMAN v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1472

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2015

January 24, 2017

UNREPORTED

Leahy, Beachley, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Eyler, James R., 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.

On October 21, 2014, Charles Newman, appellant, and Devin Marbury, both males, and Diona Thomas and Jade Cooper, both females, were indicted on fourteen counts. The counts in each indictment were identical and charged the co-defendants, inter alia, with the September 12, 2014 armed carjacking of Charles Douglas, III, and the September 13, 2014 armed robbery of Mohan Burujukadi.¹ At a pre-trial motions hearing, the co-defendants moved to sever the armed carjacking counts involving Mr. Douglas from the armed robbery counts involving Mr. Burujukadi. The court denied the motions. The co-defendants also noted that their cases were never formally joined. In response, the State made an oral motion to join, and the court ordered the State to file a written motion to join. Thereafter, the State emailed a written motion to join the cases, and the court granted the State's motion in a written order.²

Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of armed carjacking, armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed carjacking and related lesser counts involving Mr. Douglas, III, and convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armedrobbery on the counts involving Mr. Burujukadi. Appellant was sentenced, in a separate disposition hearing from his co-defendants, to thirty years for armed carjacking, a concurrent twenty years for armed robbery and a concurrent thirty years for conspiracy to commit armed carjacking of Mr. Douglas, and - consecutive to the sentences imposed for the crimes against Mr. Douglas - to concurrent sentences of twenty years, with all but ten suspended, for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery of Mr. Burujukadi. Appellant timely appealed and presents the following questions for our review:

1. Did the trial court err in refusing to sever the charges related to the carjacking of Charles Douglas from the charges related to the robbery of Mohan Burujukadi?

2. Did the trial court err in failing to suppress the out-of-court identification by Mohan Burujukadi?

3. Did the court err in failing to address Newman's post-trial letter in which he requested to discharge his counsel prior to sentencing?

For the following reasons, we shall affirm the judgments but remand for resentencing.

BACKGROUND

On September 12, 2014, at around 3:00 p.m., Mr. Douglas was at a 7-Eleven convenience store in Forestville, Maryland, when he was approached by two females who asked him for a ride. When Mr. Douglas agreed, the females got inside his vehicle, a green 1997 Chevy Lumina, with Maryland tag 8BA1246. After Mr. Douglas drove away from the 7-Eleven, the females asked him to pull over so they could talk to two males.Mr. Douglas did so, and then overheard one of the females ask one of the males about a purchase of marijuana.

At that point, one of these males, a dark-skinned man with his hair in dreadlocks, opened Mr. Douglas's car door. Mr. Douglas tried to put the car in gear to escape. However, "the female in the right passenger, pulled my arm down. The guy pushed my neck up, put the knife to my neck and the female in the back held my shoulder." Mr. Douglas's assailants then went through his pockets, took his blue Nokia cell phone, approximately $300 in cash, and his identification card. The males then pulled Mr. Douglas out of his vehicle, hopped in, and "pulled off" in Douglas's car. Mr. Douglas went home and reported the crime to the police.

The next day, the police showed Mr. Douglas several photo arrays. Mr. Douglas identified a photograph of one of the females involved in the carjacking and wrote on the back of the array that the female depicted "[p]ulled my hand away from the steering wheel and proceeded to go into my pants pocket." Mr. Douglas identified another female in a different array and wrote on the back of that one that "[s]he was in the car while one of the guys had the knife to my neck."

Mr. Douglas also viewed photo arrays containing pictures of males and identified the person who held a knife to his neck. Mr. Douglas wrote on the back of the array that this person "[h]eld a knife to my neck while pushing my head up" and "took the money out of my pocket, pulled me out of the vehicle with the help of the other guy. Then he drove off." Mr. Douglas also identified a person in another array and testified that "[h]e looks real familiar" and was the person who pulled him out of his car. At trial, Mr.Douglas identified all four co-defendants as the individuals who were involved in the crimes. The photo arrays were admitted into evidence, without objection.³

On September 13, 2014, the evening after the carjacking, Mr. Burujukadi was delivering pizza in Temple Hills, Maryland when another vehicle, driven by two African-American men, flagged him down and told him to stop. Mr. Burujukadi did so, and the two men, one with long "dread" hair and the other with short hair, got out of their green-colored vehicle and approached Mr. Burujukadi's vehicle. One of the men then reached into Mr. Burujukadi's vehicle, grabbed him by the collar, and forced him to exit. The men took Mr. Burujukadi's wallet, containing his credit cards, his iPhone 5S in a "butterfly case," and the remaining pizzas he was scheduled to deliver.

After the men let him go and drove away in the same vehicle in which they had arrived, Mr. Burujukadi went to a friend's house and reported the robbery to the police. Mr. Burujukadi testified that the license plate on the assailants' vehicle was Maryland 8BA1246. He identified a photograph of the vehicle for the jury.

A few days after the robbery, the police showed Mr. Burujukadi photographs to see if he could identify anyone involved. He identified a photo of the person he believed attacked him during the robbery. He signed the back of the photo and wrote, "I'm not sure I'm suspecting this guy. His face looks like the man who robbed me." Mr. Burujukadi also looked at a separate array of photographs and selected a photograph ofthe second individual involved in the robbery. Mr. Burujukadi signed the back of this photo and wrote, "I just think he may be the guy, because I was not sure, because it was dark. And the idea which I have I based on this idea, I think he may be but I'm not sure." Mr. Burujukadi further testified as follows:

Q. What about this photograph is similar to the person that attacked you, can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?

A. His face looks like the same, and as it was dark, I was not clear. But still when I close my eyes and I think of the person on that day, I thought when among those photographs I have seen nothing was close, only this photograph was somebody because his face cut was like this. So I had a rough idea based on the rough idea. I told the cops that this photo looks familiar, but I'm not sure.

On cross-examination, Mr. Burujukadi agreed that he told the police on the day of the incident, and prior to being shown photographs, that he could not identify anyone involved in the robbery. He testified, however, that he provided the police with a description of the suspects. He further explained that, when he originally described one of the individuals as having "curly" hair, he had since learned that the hairstyle was referred to as "dread" hair. He also agreed that he still was "[d]efinitely not sure" who the persons were that robbed him.

About two hours after the robbery of Mr. Burujukadi on September 13, 2014, Officer Joshua Boutaugh, of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, was on patrol and using a license plate reader near the 2500 block of Benning Road when the reader "hit" on a vehicle that was suspected to have been taken in an armed carjacking. Officer Boutaugh testified that the vehicle was a 1997 green Chevy Lumina with Maryland tags 8BA1246, which was then occupied by four individuals. OfficerBoutaugh activated his emergency equipment and pursued the vehicle through the District of Columbia, eventually stopping it.

Various officers with the Metropolitan Police Department confirmed that all four co-defendants were present inside the Lumina at the time of the stop. Ms. Cooper was the driver, and Mr. Newman, described as having "long dreads," was the front seat passenger at the time. Inside the Lumina, the police found pizza boxes, with a "flip or switch-blade knife laying on top of them," as well as an open, silver folding knife resting on Newman's lap.

Mr. Burujukadi's Virginia driver's license was recovered from the vehicle; a credit card from the rear driver's side floor; four cellphones, including an iPhone 5S with a "butterfly cover"; a blue Nokia cellphone; and a black, hoody sweatshirt. Mr. Burujukadi earlier testified at trial that his credit card and iPhone were returned to him by the police. He also testified that one of his assailants was wearing a hoody. Photographs of the co-defendants were taken on the night of the arrest and were used to prepare the photo arrays that were shown to both victims in this case, Messrs. Douglas and Burujukadi.

We shall include additional detail in the following discussion.

DISCUSSION

I.

Appellant first contends a new trial is required because the charges related to the carjacking of Mr. Douglas should have been tried separately from the charges related to the armed robbery of Mr. Burujukadi. The State responds that evidence concerning bothof these offenses was mutually admissible, and the cases were properly joined for trial. We concur.

At the pretrial motions hearing, held on March 30, 2015, the clerk called all...