Kingston v. State
| Decision Date | 28 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2030,2030 |
| Parties | ISAIAH EMANUEL KINGSTON v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No.: 119042010
UNREPORTED
Reed, Friedman, Alpert, Paul E. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Alpert, 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.
Appellant, Isaiah Kingston, was indicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and charged with armed carjacking, carjacking, armed robbery, robbery, first-degree assault, second-degree assault, theft, motor vehicle theft, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and conspiracy to commit each of these offenses. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of theft, conspiracy to commit carjacking, conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to commit second-degree assault, conspiracy to commit motor vehicle theft, and conspiracy to commit theft. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining counts, and those counts were later nol prossed by the State. Appellant was sentenced to 30 years with all but 15 years suspended for conspiracy to commit carjacking, and a concurrent 15 years for conspiracy to commit robbery, with the remaining counts merged, to be followed by four years supervised probation. On this timely appeal, appellant asks us to address the following questions:
For the following reasons, we shall vacate all but one of appellant's conspiracy convictions and, otherwise, affirm the judgments.
On November 15, 2018, Bishnu Kandel, the on-duty delivery driver for Lombardi's Pizza, located near Loch Raven Boulevard and Taylor Avenue in Baltimore City, received an order to deliver to 1623 Ramblewood Road. At around 2:40 p.m., Kandel drove hisown white Toyota Corolla to the address to deliver the order. He parked in front of the residence, called the phone number associated with the order and informed the individual, described as having a "young person voice," that he was outside with his delivery order. After waiting several minutes, Kandel got out of his vehicle and tried to deliver to the front door. When no one answered, he returned to his car, noticing that a young male was approaching from the side of the street.
After Kandel got back into his vehicle to call the number associated with the order, this same individual opened the passenger side door and got into Kandel's vehicle, holding a black handgun. At the same time, a second male stood outside Kandel's driver's side door. Kandel was then robbed at gunpoint and these two individuals took his wallet, containing approximately $700.00, his cellphone, his identification, and his Corolla. Kandel was unable to identify his assailants.
Five days later, on November 20, 2018, at around 10:30 a.m., Baltimore City Police Detective Brian Ralph, assigned to the Regional Auto Theft Task Force, a.k.a., R.A.T.T., was on patrol in West Baltimore, randomly looking for stolen vehicles. As he drove down the 500 block of Robert Street, the detective's automatic license plate reader alerted, indicating that a stolen vehicle was parked nearby. Detective Ralph then identified an unoccupied 2015 white Toyota Corolla, bearing Maryland tag 4BX 4609, and verified that the car was reported stolen on November 15th after checking the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") database. Detective Ralph notified other officers in the area, parked his vehicle, and waited.
Approximately ten minutes later, while he kept the Corolla under surveillance, Detective Ralph observed a young man, identified in court as appellant, approach the Corolla, unlock it and get inside, then drive out of the area. Detective Ralph followed the stolen car and stopped it a few blocks away in the 300 block of Pressman Street. After several other officers responded, Detective Ralph instructed appellant to exit the vehicle and he was placed under arrest.
Detective Steven Mahal, another officer with the R.A.T.T. team, responded and assisted with appellant's arrest. Detective Mahal seized marijuana and an operable, loaded 22 caliber, semi-automatic handgun from appellant's pocket during the search incident to his arrest.
Appellant was transported to the police station, where he was interviewed by Detective Evan Zimrin, the detective from the Baltimore Citywide Robbery Unit assigned to Kandel's carjacking case shortly after it was reported five days earlier. Detective Zimrin obtained personal information from appellant as part of the booking process and from records from the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. Appellant's address was identified in those records as being 1623 Ramblewood Road, the address identified for the pizza delivery. Appellant also provided a phone number and an emergency contact, namely, his mother, Nicole Queen. Records from T-Mobile listed Queen as the subscriber for that phone, the same phone used to call Lombardi's Pizza to make the delivery order in this case. In addition, and consistent with the victim's testimony, the cell phone records indicated that Mr. Kandel called the cell phone number associated with appellant that sameafternoon. Appellant waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and gave a recorded statement denying his involvement in the carjacking.
Appellant testified on his own behalf and denied any involvement in the underlying carjacking. We shall include additional detail in the following discussion.
Recognizing that the State sought to admit appellant's prior recorded statement for impeachment purposes, appellant asserts that the statement was inadmissible "because Mr. Kingston acknowledged making the statement and because much of it was not inconsistent with his testimony." The State responds that the issue was not properly preserved and that, in any event, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence. We agree.
Appellant testified on direct examination and denied calling Lombardi's Pizza on the day in question. However, he agreed that the phone number that was connected to the evidence in this case was the same. He also testified that, at some point, he let a friend borrow his phone, although he claimed he did not know who that friend called. He denied that he lived at the address associated with the delivery order, 1623 Ramblewood Road, although he admitted that he used to live there with his family when he was younger. He also testified that he had returned to Baltimore from college in Mississippi at the time because he "decided to take the semester off to work and get a car[.]"
Appellant denied carjacking the victim, Kandel; denied pointing a gun at him; and, denied even as much as approaching him on the day in question. He did admit that he wasarrested in a vehicle, but claimed he thought it belonged to a friend, testifying that "it was Derek's vehicle." He explained:
Appellant admitted that he possessed marijuana and a handgun when he was arrested. He explained that, after he was charged, he "was confused of possession of stolen property being that I was under - I mean, if I felt as though it was his vehicle, so at first, I was a little confused, but I understood the handgun charge."
Thereafter, on cross-examination, appellant agreed that he spoke with Detective Zimrin on November 20, 2018, and that he knew that the interview was recorded. Appellant testified that he did not recall what he told the detective about the ownership of the car in that statement. He did not recall telling him that he bought the car from a "fiend," meaning an unidentified drug addict, on the street for $150.00, two days before he was arrested. But, when asked whether he remembered making the statement, appellant then testified "upon you reiterating it, yes, I remember, but no, I didn't." In addition, appellantdenied that he lied to the detective about being home from college for Thanksgiving break at the time.
At that point, the State played part of appellant's recorded statement for the appellant's view, but with the audio turned off.1 Appellant then agreed that he told the detective that he bought the car from a drug addict, and that "I told him that because I was trying to protect my innocence . . . [a]nd at the time I was confused to the vehicle being stolen." Appellant denied that he knew that the vehicle was stolen, until after he was arrested, but that he then decided to lie about how he came into possession of the vehicle. Cross-examination continued as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial