Holland v. State
| Decision Date | 23 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2045,2045 |
| Citation | 839 A.2d 806,154 Md. App. 351 |
| Parties | Samuel Marcel HOLLAND v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Christina DeLeon, Margaret L. Lanier (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.
Rachel Marblestone Kamins, Michelle W. Cole (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Panel: HOLLANDER, ADKINS, and JOHN, J. BISHOP JR. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ. HOLLANDER, Judge.
Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Caroline County, Samuel Marcel Holland, appellant, was convicted of first degree burglary, attempted robbery, and attempted theft under five hundred dollars.1 Holland, who was seventeen years old at the time of the incident, was sentenced to a term of ten years, with all but five years suspended, for the first degree burglary offense, and a concurrent term of ten years, with all but five years suspended, for attempted robbery. The court merged the theft conviction for sentencing purposes.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
For the reasons set forth below, we shall reverse the burglary conviction but affirm the remaining convictions.
Just after dark on March 3, 2002, eighty-one year old James William Carter, also known as "Ham," left his home at 105 North Fifth Street in Denton to purchase chewing tobacco at a nearby convenience store. On route to the store, Carter passed appellant at the intersection of North Fifth and Gay Streets, approximately thirty feet from Carter's home. Appellant, who was dressed in a heavy black coat and baggy black pants, was still at the intersection when Carter returned from the store.
Upon returning to his house, Carter closed the screen door but did not lock it. Moreover, he left the wooden door to his home ajar some twelve to fourteen inches. When Carter sat down to watch television, he heard a knock at the door. Thinking that it was one of the neighborhood boys, Carter responded, "come in." At that point, someone opened the screen door and stood in the area between the screen door and the wooden door.
After a brief silence, the individual demanded that Mr. Carter give him his money. When Carter did not respond, the suspect again demanded money while he "hit for his [coat] pocket." Although Mr. Carter did not know whether the suspect had a gun, he thought he had "something." Carter refused to give the assailant any money. Instead, he called out for his roommate, Edward Taylor. Just as Mr. Taylor responded, the suspect fled.
Carter testified that he was only able to see the assailant's eyes, nose, and mouth, because the suspect's face was partially covered by the hood of his parka. Mr. Carter further stated that the suspect "wasn't no grown person." Moreover, he was convinced that the assailant was the same person he had seen on the corner when he (Carter) went to and from the store.
Although the police came to Carter's residence with some photographs, Mr. Carter was unable to identify the assailant. He stated: "No, I didn't see it in there." Yet, in court, Carter identified appellant as his assailant. Carter acknowledged, however, that he "couldn't see [the assailant's] eyes real good because he had it [i.e., the parka hood] pulled close."
The trial court then questioned Mr. Carter at length about how he knew that appellant was the assailant if he could not see the suspect's face. Carter insisted that appellant was the assailant. The following exchange is noteworthy:
Mr. Taylor testified that he responded to Mr. Carter's call and saw "a person going out of the door from the side view and then I saw the back view of this person going outside the door...." He noticed the individual's walk, which he described: "[T]he type of walk that they used, like a lazy person walk or a slur walk."
Mr. Taylor described the suspect as a dark complected male, about 120 to 130 pounds, approximately 5'2" tall. He wore a dark colored, hooded jacket with fur around the outside edge of the hood and dark, baggy, "bulky" clothes. Nevertheless, when Taylor was asked if he saw the face of the person who entered his residence, Mr. Taylor answered, "No, I did not."
Taylor recalled that Carter said the suspect had tried to rob him (Carter). Accordingly, Taylor called the police. Taylor testified: "I gave them a description of the person that I saw leaving out of the doorway...." Then, Taylor went outside to look for the assailant. As he "went around the street," Taylor "noticed the police had a person standing outside on the passenger side talking to him...." Taylor claimed that person matched the description of the assailant. He also thought this person lived in that area. However, he noticed that the person was not wearing any bulky clothes. Rather, he wore a white tee shirt and jeans. Nevertheless, Taylor recognized the individual because of his "lazy" walk.
A few days after the incident, Taylor called the police again to report that, across the street from their home, he saw "that same type of person with that type of clothes on...." Because of the person's walk and clothing, he concluded that the person across the street was the assailant. The following testimony is pertinent:
After the incident, Taylor was shown a photo array, but he was unable to make an identification....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagner v. State
...any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Holland v. State, 154 Md.App. 351, 365, 839 A.2d 806 (2003) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 313, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 Felony Murder and Burglary A conviction of fe......
-
Pryor v. State
...retains its common law meaning. Section 6-201(b). Breaking can be by means of opening a closed but unlocked door. Holland v. State, 154 Md.App. 351, 367, 839 A.2d 806 (2003) (citation omitted). A breaking does not occur, however, when the one who enters has "authority to do so at that parti......
-
Hemsley v. State
...evidence to support a conviction of burglary when the defendant knocked on the door and was invited into the home. 154 Md.App. 351, 366, 369-71 (2003). There, determined, there could be no finding of breaking or trespassory entry, because the homeowner expressly consented to defendant's ent......
-
Slick v. Reinecker
... ... Once having resolved his claim against MAIF, Slick undertook to pursue his Underinsured Motorist claim against his own carrier, State Farm Insurance Company. The policy limit was $100,000 minus the amount recovered from MAIF for a remaining policy limit of $80,000. It was with ... ...