Cousins v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 99, Sept. Term, 2016,99, Sept. Term, 2016 |
| Citation | 231 Md.App. 417,153 A.3d 163 |
| Parties | Earl Sylvester COUSINS v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Samuel Feder (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.
Benjamin A. Harris (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General on the brief) all of Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.
Arthur, Leahy, Raymond G. Thieme, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
On the day before his robbery trial was to begin in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Earl Sylvester Cousins asked to discharge his court-appointed counsel. In accordance with Md. Rule 4–215(e), the court allowed Mr. Cousins to explain the reasons for his request, but found that he did not have good cause to discharge counsel. The court proceeded to inform Mr. Cousins that the trial would proceed as scheduled and that he would have to represent himself if he discharged his counsel. Mr. Cousins said that he would discharge his counsel and represent himself.
When the trial began the following day, Mr. Cousins announced his intention to disrupt the proceedings, and he engaged in a profanity-laden tirade against the judge. The court ordered that he be removed from the courtroom, but offered him the opportunity to return if he agreed to behave in a civil fashion. Mr. Cousins did not agree.
The jury convicted Mr. Cousins of robbery, and the court sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment.
Mr. Cousins presents two questions for our review:
We affirm.
On September 13, 2014, Mr. Cousins entered the First Mariner Bank on Loch Raven Boulevard in Baltimore County and surveyed his surroundings. A teller asked Mr. Cousins if he needed help, and he replied that he was looking for his grandmother. Then he exited the bank.
Approximately 45 minutes later, Mr. Cousins returned with a second man. One of the men approached the teller and asked her to make change. The other approached another teller and said, "I want everything you got in your drawers, don't give me a dye pack, don't give me bait money and I've got a gun so don't make me use it[.]"
Footage from the bank's surveillance system, which showed the incident, was played in court, and still photographs from the surveillance cameras were introduced into evidence. A teller identified Mr. Cousins as the man who robbed her. A detective identified Mr. Cousins based on his detailed review of the surveillance footage, photographs of Mr. Cousins, and time that he spent interviewing Mr. Cousins.
Baltimore County detectives arrested Mr. Cousins and interviewed him regarding the robbery. A video-recording of the interview was played for the jury. In the recording, Mr. Cousins told the detectives that he committed the robbery with a man named Nelson. Mr. Cousins explained that he was addicted to drugs and that he committed the robbery to obtain money to buy drugs. Mr. Cousins identified Nelson and himself in photographs. A detective testified that he also interviewed Nelson and learned that the two were "associates."
We shall provide additional facts as necessary in our discussion of each of the issues presented.
Mr. Cousins first expressed disagreement with his appointed counsel at a hearing on February 5, 2015, at which defense counsel requested a postponement. Mr. Cousins stated that he did not agree to the postponement. He said, Apparently addressing the prosecutor, Mr. Cousins added, "How do you like that, asshole?"
The court granted the postponement, and advised Mr. Cousins to "tell Mr. Deros the trial is now April 7, 2015."
By the time of a subsequent hearing on March 25, 2015, private counsel had not yet entered an appearance. At that hearing, Mr. Cousins's appointed counsel expressed concern over his ability to communicate with his client and requested a competency evaluation:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: ... I'm asking Your Honor to enter an Order for an examination for competency as well as criminal responsibility as long as I'm having him evaluated. You may recall our last appearance before Your Honor when the matter was postponed on the last trial date. Mr. Cousins had some choice words for Mr. Cox [the prosecutor].... Over the course of the last month to six weeks, Mr. Cox and I have been attempting to resolve some discovery issues, most of which have been resolved and as I collected that discovery ... I have gone to see my client and review those with him. Those conversations deteriorate to the point where I'm not, I don't believe that Mr. Cousins, it deteriorates to the point where he's not a meaningful participant in one, reviewing the discovery with him and two, being able to participate in strategy decisions or litigation.... But based on the demeanor, I think it's important to have him evaluated so that if there's something we can do to, to help him be a meaningful participate, participant in, in trial preparation and litigation, I'd, I'd rather have that done before we did anything else.
Later in the proceedings, Mr. Cousins explained that the case had previously been postponed and that he was supposed to get another attorney, but that this had yet to happen. The following colloquy between Mr. Cousins and the court ensued:
Defense counsel argued that the court should not rule on Mr. Cousins's request to discharge counsel until it had resolved the issue of competency. The court agreed:
The court concluded the proceeding by indicating that it would "sign the Order for examination for competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility."1
After finding Mr. Cousins competent to stand trial on May 28, 2015, the court he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coale
...center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable." Cousins v. State , 231 Md. App. 417, 438, 153 A.3d 163 (2017). Against this standard, we cannot say that the motions court abused its discretion when it granted the State's moti......
-
Wallace v. State
...him, and the matter was closed. In terms of the appellate standard by which the Court will review such a ruling, Cousins v. State, 231 Md. App. 417, 438, 153 A.3d 163, cert. denied, 453 Md. 13, 160 A.3d 549 (2017), made it clear that "a trial court's determination that a defendant had no me......
-
Wallace v. State
...him, and the matter was closed. In terms of the appellate standard by which the Court will review such a ruling, Cousins v. State, 231 Md. App. 417, 438, 153 A.3d 163, cert. denied, 453 Md. 13, 160 A.2d 549 (2017), made it clear that "a trial court's determination that a defendant had no me......
-
Lamone v. Schlakman
... ... Sparaco as an eligible candidate and the State Board of Elections ("State Board") to include him as a candidate for the District Twelve seat on the 2016 General Election ballot. They maintained ... ...