Reyes v. State
| Decision Date | 11 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2019-2021 |
| Parties | SELVIN FEDERICO REYES v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No C-02-CR-17-000873
Zic Tang, Battaglia, Lynne A., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
This belated appeal stems from an October 2017 bench trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Appellant, Selvin Federico Reyes, was found guilty of first-degree assault, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and theft of property valued less than $1,000. As to the first-degree assault conviction, the court imposed a sentence of ten years' incarceration, with all but six years suspended. As to the reckless endangerment and theft convictions, the court imposed six-month sentences concurrent with the sentence for first-degree assault. For sentencing purposes, the court merged the second-degree assault conviction into the first-degree assault conviction and placed appellant on three years of supervised probation.
For the reasons to follow, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
The State's evidence at trial centered on a domestic dispute between appellant and his wife, Leslie Journet, at their home on September 1, 2016. Early that morning, Ms. Journet confronted appellant about his infidelity, which developed into an argument lasting about 30 minutes. Ms. Journet was screaming while appellant was calm. When appellant tried to leave the home, Ms. Journet grabbed him by the hand to keep him from leaving so she could "get the answers from him."
Appellant became angry, placed both of his hands tightly around Ms. Journet's neck, and told Ms. Journet that he "just wanted to leave [and] to let him leave." Ms. Journet screamed, "Somebody help me" two or three times and "stop, don't kill me" as appellant had his hands around her neck.
Ms. Journet testified that she could not see, as her vision began to blur, initially describing that she saw "like stars, like blurry stars." She testified that her breathing "was a little tight." She felt dizzy and lightheaded. Although she did not lose consciousness or black out completely, Ms. Journet thought that she was going to pass out and die. Ms. Journet testified that appellant's hands were not around her neck for long because, when she screamed for help, her teenage son appeared and told appellant to let her go.
Appellant complied, took his belongings, and left the house from the rear. Ms. Journet proceeded outside from the front and tried to call 911, but appellant ran from the back of the house, "grabbed [her] phone," and "threw it across the street." Panicked and scared, Ms. Journet climbed into the bed of appellant's pick-up truck, which was parked on the street in front of the house, where she believed would be safer than inside the house. Appellant got into the truck and drove away before Ms. Journet had a chance to get off the truck. After making a turn, appellant stopped the truck, "ask[ed Ms. Journet] to get off the pickup[,]" and then he "started grabbing [her] by the arm and eventually by the hair and threw [her] to the ground." Ms. Journet ran towards the house screaming for someone to call 911.
By that time, Ms. Journet's teenage daughter was on the phone with 911. As the daughter was calling 911, a neighbor found Ms. Journet's cell phone. The court admitted the 911 recording in which Ms. Journet conveyed that appellant "choked" her and she "blacked out," meaning she "was seeing the blurry and the stars and [she] felt lightheaded."
Although Ms. Journet had no scratches on her face or neck and did not seek medical treatment after the incident, she relayed to the investigating detective, who testified, that Ms. Journet experienced neck pain and, for about two days following the incident, pain in her "throat."
A domestic violence report, which was admitted into evidence, contained a section for "Strangulation Symptoms and/or Injury" that was completed by an officer. That section indicated "bruising" on or about Ms. Journet's face and "redness" "under chin/chest/shoulder." The questionnaire on the report inquired "How long?" the strangulation lasted, and the indicated response was a "decent amount," "started to black out." The questionnaire also asked, "Was the victim shaken simultaneously while being strangled?" and the indicated response was "Yes."
We shall supply additional facts, as may be relevant, in our analysis.
Appellant first contends that the circuit court erred in conducting a bench trial without a proper jury trial waiver. Specifically, he argues that the colloquy conducted by his trial counsel lacked information about the reasonable doubt standard. Before the trial began, the court asked defense counsel to "qualify [appellant] with regard to . . . his desire to have a bench trial." The following colloquy occurred:
Based on this colloquy, appellant contends that his jury trial waiver was not made knowingly.
Rule 4-246(b) governs the waiver of the right to a jury trial in circuit court and provides in relevant part:
Procedure for Acceptance of Waiver. A defendant may waive the right to a trial by jury at any time before the commencement of trial. The court may not accept the waiver until, after an examination of the defendant on the record in open court conducted by the court, the State's Attorney, the attorney for the defendant, or any combination thereof, the court determines and announces on the record that the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily.
(Emphasis added). Although there is no "fixed incantation" which the court must recite, the record must show that the defendant has "some knowledge of the jury trial right before being allowed to waive it." Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 317-18 (2006) (citations omitted). "In determining whether a constitutional right has been violated, we make an independent, de novo, constitutional appraisal by applying the law to the facts presented in a particular case." Williams v. State, 372 Md. 386, 401 (2002).
Appellant contends that the waiver was deficient because the colloquy conducted by his counsel contained no information regarding the State's burden to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.[1] Kang v. State, 393 Md. 97 (2006), is instructive. In Kang, the Supreme Court of Maryland[2] upheld a jury trial waiver based on a colloquy, which likewise did not advise the defendant of the reasonable doubt standard. Id. at 109-10. In that case, the trial court provided a brief voir dire, informing Kang that a jury would consist of "12 men and women chosen from the community" that "would decide [his] guilt or innocence of the charges[,]" and "would have to unanimously agree upon [his] guilt[.]" Id. The Court stated that while the colloquy conducted by the trial judge was "not clothed in the finest cashmere," it informed Kang about "the fundamentals of a jury trial, including that the defendant possessed the right to a trial by a judge or jury; a jury consists of 12 individuals who are chosen from the defendant's peers; and a jury's decision must be unanimous[.]" Id. at 111-12.
In the instant matter, defense counsel informed appellant about his right to have either a bench or jury trial, confirming on the record that they had discussed this right. Defense counsel also informed him about the fundamentals of what a jury trial would entail, including the number of jurors who would deliberate, the jurors' county of residence, and the requirement that the jurors' verdict be unanimous. The record thus "more than adequately demonstrates that [appellant] possessed 'some knowledge' of his right to a jury trial." Id. at 111 (quoting State v. Bell, 351 Md. 709, 727 (1998)). Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in accepting appellant's jury trial waiver.
Appellant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for first-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial