Holland v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 2383,2383 |
| Parties | SHERMAN HOLLAND v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Calvert County
Case No. 04-K-16-000231
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Wright, 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 bench trial in the Circuit Court for Calvert County, Sherman Holland, appellant, was found guilty of one count of theft scheme between $10,000.00 and $100,000.00; ten counts of motor vehicle theft; ten counts of theft; and two counts of attempted theft. On the conviction of theft scheme, Holland was sentenced to a term of ten years' imprisonment, with time served suspended, and five years' probation. All other convictions were merged for sentencing purposes. In this appeal, Holland presents six questions for our review, which we have rephrased and consolidated into five questions. They are:
For the reasons to follow, we answer the first question in the affirmative. As to the remaining questions, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Holland'sconvictions, and that the circuit court did not err in denying Holland's motions.1 We address Holland's third question as that issue may recur on re-trial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Holland was arrested and charged, pursuant to an indictment filed on June 24, 2016, in connection with a string of thefts that occurred in Calvert County over a six-week period. Holland made his initial appearance before the circuit court on July 29, 2016, and trial was set for December 6, 2017.
Just prior to trial, the parties requested a joint continuance. The request was related to an "ongoing discovery issue" stemming from the State's obligation "to provide information to the defense regarding DNA samples that had been tested at the scene." The court granted the parties' request, finding "good cause" for the continuance. Trial was reset for January 24, 2017.
Just prior to trial, the parties made another joint motion to postpone. In that motion, the parties stated that certain DNA samples taken from some of the crime scenes had been "mistakenly filed" and that the samples had "the potential to provide for bothexculpatory and inculpatory evidence." The parties asked the court to find "good cause" to postpone Holland's trial date.
At the hearing on the motion, the circuit court explained to Holland that the State had a duty to bring him to trial within 180 days of his initial appearance, or by January 25, 2017, and that, in order to go beyond that date, the court needed to find "good cause." The court explained that defense counsel had asked to go beyond the 180-day limit because, if the result of the DNA testing was inculpatory, that result could be challenged, and, if the DNA testing was exculpatory, that would show Holland was innocent. The court further explained that the State had similar concerns, most notably the duty to prosecute people that have committed crimes and to not prosecute people if there is evidence showing that someone is not guilty of a crime.
At that point, Holland addressed the circuit court, stating that the State "don't have no fingerprints, evidence, or nothing showing that [he] even committed a crime," and that he was "sitting down in the jail for nothing while they just - they are building a case against [him]." The court granted the parties' postponement request, finding good cause because the State did not intentionally delay the proceedings and because the results of the DNA testing were "important to both sides in order to . . . resolve this case really as expeditiously as possible." Trial was then reset for May 23, 2017.
On May 15, 2017, the circuit court held a motions hearing, at which defense counsel informed the court that the State had failed to timely disclose "numerous piecesof evidence," including certain "cell phone evidence," which the State did not disclose until a few weeks before the hearing. Defense counsel argued that, as a result of the State's discovery violation, the court should issue the sanction of exclusion. The court disagreed, finding that the State had not acted in bad faith and that the proper remedy was not to exclude the evidence but to give the Defense additional time to review the evidence. Despite Holland's insistence that he did not want a postponement, defense counsel ultimately agreed to the court's offer of a postponement. The court then found that there was good cause for the postponement, and Holland's trial date was reset for September 12, 2017.
Shortly before trial, Holland filed a motion to exclude "tangible evidence and testimony" regarding Verizon's Real Time Tool ("RTT") data which, according to Holland, the State planned to introduce at trial to show the location of his cellphone on the day that some of the thefts occurred. At a hearing on Holland's motion, which was held on September 8, 2017, defense counsel explained that RTT data, a form of cellphone location data, is "derived solely from round trip delay measurement," which analyzes communications between a cell phone and a cell tower to determine the latitude and longitude of a cell phone at a particular time. Defense counsel further explained that the resulting coordinates, or RTT data, are used by Verizon "to try to determine where the phone is located, not for any real scientific purpose, but to try to figure out where to beef up their tower and their cell phone coverage for those clients." According to defensecounsel, the State's expert witness used the RTT data to make a map of Holland's cell phone activity "to make it appear that that is where Mr. Holland's cell phone [was] at the time."
In arguing that the RTT data was unreliable, defense counsel noted that the RTT reports generated by Verizon came with a disclaimer, which stated:
The latitude and longitude measurements on the [RTT] report are derived solely from the Round Trip Delay measurement. They are best estimates and are not related to any GPS measurement. Measurements with a high confidence factor may be more accurate than measurements with a low confidence factor, but all measurements contained on this report are the best estimates available rather than precise location.
Defense counsel argued that, based on that disclaimer, the RTT data should be excluded or, at the very least, subjected to a Frye-Reed2 hearing to determine whether the RTT data "is scientifically reliable or accepted in the community." When the circuit court asked defense counsel how the RTT data differed from "cell phone tower data," which had previously been accepted by this Court as reliable, defense counsel responded that, unlike cell phone tower data, which only shows a cell phone's general location, RTT data provides "more precise location information" in the form of longitude and latitude coordinates.
The circuit court denied defense counsel's request for a Frye-Reed hearing, ruling that the technique used by Verizon to plot the location of a cell phone for the RTT data was "not a new or novel scientific technique" but rather a separate technique "that's being already employed." The court did, however, permit the Defense the opportunity to call an expert witness "to bring in counter scientific testimony." At that suggestion, Defense counsel stated that, although the Defense had an expert willing to give such testimony, the expert was unavailable to testify at the upcoming trial. The court then suggested a postponement, and defense counsel agreed, stating that she would "like the expert . . . to be able to counter [the RTT data] and just talk about how it is not reliable." The court found good cause for the postponement and trial was reset for February 12, 2018.
Just before trial, Holland filed a motion to dismiss all charges. Holland claimed that, pursuant to Maryland law, the State was required to bring him to trial within 180 days of his initial appearance, or by January 25, 2017, and that the State failed to do so. Holland also claimed that the State's failure to bring him to trial earlier had violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Following a hearing, the circuit court denied Holland's motion. The court found that there was good cause to postpone Holland's trial beyond January 25, 2017, given that the parties were awaiting the results of DNA evidence that had the potential to be either inculpatory or exculpatory. The court also found no violation of Holland's right to aspeedy trial, noting that Holland's case was "pretty complicated," that there was "good cause" for the various continuances, and that Holland was not prejudiced by the delay.
On February 9, 2018, the parties returned to court for a plea hearing. At that hearing, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial