Conyers v. State
Decision Date | 05 February 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 26,26 |
Citation | 367 Md. 571,790 A.2d 15 |
Parties | Clarence CONYERS, Jr., v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Robert W. Biddle (Bennett & Nathans, LLP, Baltimore; Nancy M. Cohen, Towson), on brief, for appellant.
Annabelle L. Lisic, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ HARRELL, Judge.
This is an appeal by Clarence Conyers, Jr. (Petitioner) from the denial by the Circuit Court for Wicomico County of post conviction relief in his capital case.1 See Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 2000 Supp.), Article 27, §§ 645A-J (Maryland's Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act),2 and Maryland Rules 4-401 through 4-408,3 and 8-306.4 This is the third time Petitioner has sought this Court's review regarding the convictions and sentences in this matter.
In January 1996, following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, Petitioner was convicted, with respect to the victim, Wanda Johnson, of premeditated murder, felony murder, first-degree burglary, robbery with a deadly weapon, attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, robbery, attempted robbery, and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. In the same proceeding, Petitioner was convicted of premeditated murder of, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony against Lawrence Bradshaw, his alleged accomplice in the crimes against Ms. Johnson. The same jury sentenced Petitioner to death for the murder of Ms. Johnson.5 Petitioner received life without possibility of parole for the murder of Lawrence Bradshaw.6
In the initial direct appeal, this Court reversed the burglary conviction, affirmed the murder and other convictions, and vacated the death sentence, finding with regard to the latter that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting a portion of the pre-sentence investigation report referring to Petitioner's prior juvenile charges that had not resulted in a finding of delinquency. See Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 575, 693 A.2d 781, 805 (1997)
("Conyers I"). The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Wicomico County for a new sentencing proceeding relating solely to the murder of Ms. Johnson.
In January 1998, a new capital sentencing proceeding was conducted before a jury in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County.7 Petitioner, represented by different trial counsel, was sentenced again to death for the murder of Wanda Johnson.8 On the second direct appeal, this Court affirmed. See Conyers v. State, 354 Md. 132, 200, 729 A.2d 910, 946,
cert. denied, 528 U.S. 910, 120 S.Ct. 258, 145 L.Ed.2d 216 (1999) ("Conyers II"). The U.S. Supreme Court denied further review. See Conyers v. Maryland, 528 U.S. 910, 120 S.Ct. 258, 145 L.Ed.2d 216 (1999).
On 7 March 2000, pursuant with the provisions of Maryland's Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, Md.Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 2000 Supp.), Art. 27, §§ 645 A-J and Md. Rules 4-401 through 4-408, and 8-306, Petitioner, through yet different trial counsel, filed a petition for post conviction relief9 in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, alleging, among other things, due process violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and various trial court errors. After an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court10 denied Petitioner post conviction relief by an Order dated 30 January 2001. The court found Petitioner's allegations of due process violations unsupported by the evidence. As to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court concluded Petitioner's assertions were without merit. The court dismissed Petitioner's contentions of trial and sentencing court errors, finding the actions to be proper. Finally, the court rejected Petitioner's challenges to Maryland's death penalty procedure and method of execution.
On 28 February 2001, pursuant to the provisions of Md.Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 645-I and Md. Rule 8-306, Petitioner filed with this Court an application for leave to appeal denial of post conviction relief. The application was granted on 11 May 2001. We shall reverse the Circuit Court's denial of Petitioner's petition for post conviction relief and remand this case to the Circuit Court for Wicomico County for a new trial.
Prior to the recitation of the issues presented for our consideration here, we set out the underlying facts regarding Petitioner's convictions, as recounted by the post conviction hearing judge.11
There were no signs of forced entry into the Johnson home. Wanda Johnson's body was found in the master bedroom. She had been shot three times in the head, once in the back, and once in the arm. It was Ms. Johnson's custom to keep a small amount of money in her wallet. Furthermore, when Ms. Wilson spoke to Ms. Johnson earlier that evening, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Ms. Johnson said that she had twenty dollars. Ms. Johnson's open wallet was found atop her dresser in the master bedroom; there was no money in the wallet. In the den, a door to a closet had been forced open, revealing a safe. The closet door had a hasp and a lock on it for security, but the hasp and lock had been pried out of the door jamb to gain access to the closet. Pulling the hasp out of the door jamb had caused splinters to fall on the floor around the closet. The safe inside the closet was closed. Mr. Johnson opened the safe the day after his wife's murder; it contained fifteen dollars.
At the second capital sentencing hearing,12 during the State's case, Charles Johnson (no relation to the victim, Wanda Johnson, or her husband) testified that while he was Petitioner's cellmate 13 at the Baltimore County Detention Center in October-November of 1994, Petitioner discussed the robbery at [Wanda] Johnson's home. Charles Johnson stated Petitioner told him that he and a person named "Molek"14 went to Wanda Johnson's house and Petitioner went upstairs to rob a safe. Charles Johnson testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Management v. Taha
... ... Thereafter, the State entered a nolle prosequi to the charges ... B. Procedural History ... On March 3, 1999, Taha filed in the ... ...
-
Grandison v. State
...of the elements that Grandison is required to establish to prevail on his Brady claim. As we recently stated in Conyers v. State, 367 Md. 571, 597-98, 790 A.2d 15, 30-31 (2002): The Supreme Court made clear in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), that "the s......
-
Jones v. State
...of Rule 8-131(a) is to ensure fairness for all parties and to promote the orderly administration of law. See Conyers v. State, 367 Md. 571, 594, 790 A.2d 15, 29 (2002). Although the interests of fairness generally are furthered by requiring the issues to be brought first to the attention of......
-
Abrams v. State, 2021 September Term, 2006.
...record. Ordinarily, an argument not raised below is not preserved for appellate review. Maryland Rule 8-131(a). See Conyers v. State, 367 Md. 571, 593-94, 790 A.2d 15 (2002). Thus we decline to address the State's 17. This Court has acknowledged "the close relationship between and common pr......