Johnson v. State
| Citation | 137 A.3d 253,228 Md.App. 27 |
| Decision Date | 31 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1410, Sept. Term, 2013.,1410, Sept. Term, 2013. |
| Parties | Michael Anthony JOHNSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Benjamin M. Miller (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellant.
Cathleen C. Brockmeyer (Douglas G. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Panel: MEREDITH, WOODWARD, and FRIEDMAN, JJ.
WOODWARD
, J.
Michael Johnson, appellant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County of one count of stalking, ten counts of reckless endangerment, two counts of harassment, ten counts of harassment by electronic mail (“email”), and fifty counts of violating a protective order. As a result, the court imposed concurrent and consecutive sentences which, in the aggregate, totaled eighty-five years and ninety days' imprisonment.
On appeal, appellant raises the following questions,1 which we have slightly reworded:
1. Did the trial court err by failing to merge appellant's ten convictions for email harassment under Section 3–805 of the Criminal Law Article
, which punishes a “course of conduct”?
2. Did the trial court err by failing to merge appellant's fifty convictions for violating a protective order into nine convictions, based on conduct occurring on nine separate days?
For the following reasons, we shall answer these questions in the negative and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
Angell Williams and appellant were married and in 2010 had a son together; they separated in the summer of 2010 and divorced in September 2011. In July 2010, Williams obtained a protective order against appellant. On February 27, 2011, appellant was arrested for violating the protective order. Appellant went to jail, but was released the same night. On February 28, 2011, appellant attacked Williams as she was getting into her car; he was arrested for second degree assault, found guilty of violating the protective order and assaulting Williams, and sentenced to a year of imprisonment.
On June 20, 2012, Williams could not log into her MSN email account. When she tried to reset her password, she noticed that the recovery email address listed was not hers, but instead was that of Mikejohnson516@yahoo.com, appellant's email address. That same day, three to four men came to Williams's home and said they were responding to a sex ad on Craigslist. One such man showed Williams the ad on his phone; the ad contained old pictures of Williams, her name and address, as well as an invitation for men to come to Williams's home and have sex with her. Williams, who had not placed the ad, called 911. The police came to her home, but said that there was nothing they could do without proof of who created the ad.
On June 21, 2012, Williams received messages from several of her friends on Facebook, asking Williams why she created another Facebook page. Williams went on Facebook and saw the new page, which, like the Craigslist ad, contained old pictures of Williams, as well as her address and prices listed for various sex acts. Williams recognized that the pictures were from her hacked MSN email account. Also on June 21, 2012, Williams received an email message from Gmail notifying her that she had attempted to reset the password for her email account. Williams notified Gmail that she had not attempted to reset her password. On June 21, 2012, approximately forty men came to Williams's home in response to sex ads. One of these men showed her the Craigslist ad to which he was responding. The ad read:
This is real, rape me. I want some guys to knock on my door. When I open it, smack me, push me down, rip my panties off, fuck me and leave me. No talking, just rape me and go. If your [sic] down, no emails, just come over, 7300 18th Ave, Apartment 202, Hyattsville, Maryland 20783, map quest it and come on over. Real men step up.
On June 23, 2012, as men were still coming to Williams's home, Williams received emails from Mikejohnson516@yahoo.com, appellant's email account. The first email read: “You having fun yet.” Williams replied: Appellant responded, “Don't know what you're talking about, but maybe we can work something out so I can make it stop for you.” Williams responded, “Maybe your probation officer can help me;” a condition of appellant's probation was to have no contact with Williams. Appellant replied:
301–699–3644, Agent Jones, call when you're ready, don't see how that will stop your problem since I heard your address is posted on a lot of adult websites; and I think I could help you get them down. But, if I'm not here, maybe they will stay up there. Whoever put them up there must not know it's some crazy people out there. Be safe from leaving your house. Hope nobody hangs around, but, like I said, maybe we can work something out.
The email exchanges continued; that same day, Williams filed a petition for a protective order against appellant and received a temporary protective order. She also called 911 and gave the police who responded a copy of the temporary order. The police said that they would attempt to serve appellant with such order.
Williams received another email from appellant on June 24, 2012, which read:
Your life wasn't meant to be normal. You can try to be something you're not, but your life has never been normal for 32 years, so why do you think it's going to change. It's okay to lie to other people like your life is something it's not, but what about yourself? It will always catch up to you. This is how your life has been and always be. Love always, bye Big Head.
Men were still coming to Williams's home at all hours of the day and night. Williams would tell the men that the ads were fake and ask what website had posted the ad; then she would contact that website and ask it to take down the ad. One ad posted on Blackplanet.com read:
Hello, I'm Angell. I'm looking for sex and sex only. I swallow. I do anal and groups up to five guys at once. If you're not in Maryland, DC or Virginia, please don't bother me. If you do live in the DMV, holla at your girl with that wet-wet and sloppy head. I live in Riggs Hill Condos, so if you close by, hit me up.
Williams called 911 again on June 26, 2012, in an attempt to put a stop to the men responding to the ads. The police advised her to press charges for violation of a protective order, which she did the next day.
On June 29, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on the final protective order. Williams showed the court the emails and ads. The court granted the final protective order and ordered appellant to not have any contact with Williams.
On July 6, 2012, as men were still coming to Williams's home, Williams received an email from riffraffshawn@yahoo.com. Williams had a friend with the stage name of Riffraff Shawn that appellant knew, but Williams and Shawn never exchanged emails. The email said: A few hours later, Williams received a second email from the same address; it read:
Williams, who suspected that the emails were coming from appellant, replied to the e-mail in the hopes that appellant would identify himself, and to figure out “how he could be set up” so that police could arrest him. Williams also called the police to ask them for help in catching appellant; she suggested that the police “book the hotel room and have him go there an[d] arrest him.” The police told Williams to file charges, which she did that day. Williams also bought a shotgun to protect herself and her four children from appellant.
Williams received additional emails from the riffraffshawn@yahoo.com address on July 9, with further demands that Williams meet him at a hotel room. Williams replied, Although Williams had no intentions of meeting him, she had hoped that appellant would stop posting the ads, as men were still coming to her home.
On July 13, 2012, Williams received an email from the riffraffshawn@yahoo.com email address with a new ad. The ad, which contained the same old photos of Williams that were from her hacked MSN email account, as well as her address, read: “Come over, looking for good dick.” That same day, Williams received additional emails from the riffraffshawn@yahoo.com email address pressuring her to meet him at a hotel. When Williams refused, she received the following response: Williams received another email on July 13 with the post on the school website, which contained the same pictures and read:
Hi, my name is Angell Mary Williams. I'm the mother of [AC] and [CC] and I will have sex with there [sic] teachers in return for them getting passing grades. It can be for however long they attend the school and they get passing grades. I live at 7300 18th Avenue, Apartment 202, Hyattsville, MD 20783, and have done this at all there [sic] other schools and don't mind doing it here as well. Thank you, and hope we have a great year together.
On July 14, Williams received the following email:
To whom may read this, the part of the investigation that leads to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State
...jury instructions, verdict sheet, and evidence introduced at trial to determine whether ambiguity existed." Johnson v. State , 228 Md. App. 27, 47, 49, 137 A.3d 253 (2016) (citing Morris v. State , 192 Md. App. 1, 39, 993 A.2d 716 (2010) ). We find no such ambiguity here. The evidence prese......
-
Ford v. State
...rebuttal testimony, we will reverse the ruling "only if it is manifestly wrong and substantially injurious." Johnson v. State , 228 Md. App. 27, 56, 137 A.3d 253 (2016), cert. denied , 450 Md. 120, 146 A.3d 471 (2016) (internal citations omitted).In general, "evidence of a person's characte......
-
Darling v. State
...what the proponent claims, but only that there is sufficient evidence that the jury ultimately might do so." Johnson v. State , 228 Md.App. 27, 59, 137 A.3d 253 (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted), cert. denied , 450 Md. 120, 146 A.3d 471 (2016). As explained in 2 McCormick on......
-
Sykes v. State
...the jury ultimately might do so." Darling , 232 Md. App. at 455, 158 A.3d 1065 (alteration in original) (quoting Johnson v. State , 228 Md. App. 27, 59, 137 A.3d 253 (2016) ). For electronic evidence, we utilize the "reasonable juror" test, and ask whether a reasonable juror might find more......