Hicks v. State
| Decision Date | 24 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1542,1542 |
| Parties | ALLEN WATKINS HICKS v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Case No.: 3K-16-001665
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Kehoe, 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.
After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Allen Watkins Hicks was convicted of first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree sexual offense, kidnapping, and robbery with a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to three consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first-degree rape and first-degree sexual offense convictions, a consecutive sentence of thirty years for the kidnapping conviction, and a twenty-year sentence for the robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction to run concurrently with the sentence for kidnapping. Hicks presents four issues, which we have reworded slightly:
We will affirm the court's judgments.
Because Hicks does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him, we will summarize the evidence produced at trial only to the extent necessary to provide context to his appellate contentions.
"A."1 was a teacher at a school (the "School") in Baltimore County. On December 23, 2015, she stayed late because the school's alarm system would not activate. She eventually left at around 6:30 p.m. When walking across the School's otherwise-deserted campus to her car, she was accosted at gunpoint by a man dressed in a dark sweatshirt with a hood and baggy sweatpants with an elastic drawstring and a Velcro pocket. The man was wearing either a mask or a cap over his face. When A. attempted to pull away, the man struck her in the face with the butt of the handgun, knocking her to the ground. What followed was a horrific ordeal2 during which A. was kidnapped, robbed, repeatedly beaten, and repeatedly sexually assaulted. After the assailant finished his last sexual assault, he tied her hands and ankles together, and then "washed" all parts of her body affected by his assaults with a liquid that A. could not identify. Her assailant then carried her to her car, placed her in the rear seat, and blindfolded her. A. remembered that her vehicle was driven away from the school, possibly onto an interstate, until it came to rest in what turned out to be a residential neighborhood in a suburb of Baltimore. The assailant left the car, telling A. that he would return. After a period of time—by her estimation, at least ten minutes, perhaps a bit more—A. heard the voices of people talking to one another. She managed to open a back door with her feet and roll out into the street. A. shouted for help, and thepeople whom she had overheard came to her assistance. One of them called 911. This occurred at about 9:30 p.m.
Forensic investigators from the Baltimore County Police Department were unable to recover any identifying DNA, fingerprint or other physical evidence from A.'s SAFE exam, her car, or the campus of the School. However, the police did learn that, in the fall of 2015, Hicks was employed by Brickman Landscaping Service, which provided the lawn service for the School. Hicks was part of a Brickman crew that worked on the campus of the School approximately six times in 2015; the last time was in early December. Brickman provided all of its landscapers "Maxi-flex" gloves to wear. These gloves matched the description that A. gave to the police of the gloves worn by her assailant. At trial, Brickman's local branch manager testified that Maxi-flex gloves were part fabric and part rubber, noting that the palm and fingertips were rubberized to improve grip (this information was consistent with A.'s description of the assailant's gloves). He also testified that these gloves were special ordered and were generally not available at stores like the Home Depot or Lowe's. The police obtained a pair of Maxi-flex gloves from Hicks's residence that were introduced into evidence at the trial. A. testified that the gloves worn by her assailant were very similar to the pair introduced at trial, but that she could not state with absolute certainty that the gloves were identical.
The office manager at the School told police that someone, who did not identify him-or herself, called the School at approximately 1:00 p.m. on December 23 and asked onlywhen the school was closing that day. The call was made from 301-388-6531, the number of a cell phone that police later determined was used by Hicks.
The police knew that Hicks had been convicted of first-degree rape in Prince George's County in 1997, and he became a focus of their investigation.
On January 13, 2016, Baltimore County Police Detectives Michael West and Jessica Hummel interviewed Hicks at his home. Hicks confirmed that he had worked for Brickman the first two weeks of December, but that he had not been working recently due to the weather. Police obtained a cell phone number associated with Hicks and discovered that this same cell phone called the School at around 1:04 p.m., the date of the assault. Based on this and other information, the police obtained a search warrant for Hicks's residence and a warrant for his arrest for providing inaccurate and incomplete information on his sex offender registration statements.3 The police executed both warrants on January 22, 2017. Pursuant to the search warrant, the police seized a pair of black Maxi-flex gloves, which, as we have mentioned, were introduced at trial. Hicks's DNA profile matched the DNA obtained from the gloves. Police also recovered, among other items, clothing and boots consistent with A'.s description of what the assailant was wearing, two cell phones, an MTA smart card, a Brickman t-shirt, and condoms. It was later discovered that one of the cell phones was used to call A.'s school on the date of the assault to learn when the school would close.
After he was arrested, Hicks was interviewed at the police station by Detective Hummel. We will discuss this interview in parts 1 and 2 of this opinion. A redacted version of Hicks's statement was played for the jury at trial.4
The jury also heard audio recordings of two phone calls Hicks made from jail. In those calls, dated January 25, 2016 and February 9, 2016, respectively, Hicks can be heard speaking with another male, asking whether the police took his black work gloves from his bedroom.
FBI Agent Matthew Wilde, accepted as an expert in historical cell site analysis, examined the T-Mobile records associated with Hicks's cell phone. Using cell phone location information, Wilde opined that Hicks's cell phone made calls or texts near his home in the White Marsh area on December 23, 2015, at 1:04 p.m., 1:44 p.m., and 1:47 p.m. However, later that day, at around 4:50 p.m. to 4:54 p.m., Hicks's cell phone made text messages in the vicinity of A.'s school. Hicks's cell phone then made text messages later that evening, between 11:05 p.m. and 11:07 p.m., from the cell tower located back near his home.
Two witnesses, Detective Hummel and Dana McAlister, a computer forensic expert employed by the Baltimore County Police Department Crime Laboratory, testified as to Hicks's cell phone. Their testimony is the subject of part 3 of this opinion.
Hicks challenges the admission of his statement to the police on January 22, 2016, on two grounds. First, he asserts that his statement was the result of an illegal arrest because Hicks was not required to register as a sex offender at the time of the arrest, and the police officer who prepared the warrant knew or should have known that. Second, his statement was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights guaranteed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). These contentions, or variations of them, were raised to the trial court in a motion to suppress. The trial court found neither of them to be persuasive, and nor do we.
The general standard of review is well-established:
Appellate review of a motion to suppress is limited to the record developed at the suppression hearing. We view the evidence and inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party who prevails on the motion, here, the State. We accept the suppression court's factual findings unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous. We give due weight to a trial court's finding that the officer was credible. We review legal questions de novo, and where, as here, a party has raised a constitutional challenge to a search or seizure, we must make an independent constitutional evaluation by reviewing the relevant law and applying it to the unique facts and circumstances of the case.
State v. Johnson, 458 Md. 519, 532-33 (2018) ().
Hicks leads with the argument that his initial arrest was illegal because, at the time he was arrested, he was not required to register as a sex offender. Because the arrest wasillegal, his post-arrest statement to the police should have been suppressed. Hicks does not dispute that, when he was released from prison after serving his sentence for his 1997 first-degree rape conviction, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services entered his name in the Maryland sex offender registry....
To continue reading
Request your trial