On March 22, 2012, self-represented Petitioner Rommell Riggins filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition attacking his convictions for two counts of first-degree robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon, two counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, one count of possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and one count of possession of a regulated firearm by a felon. ECF No. 9, Ex. 1-2. After it was determined that the Petition was not time-barred (ECF Nos. 9 and 10), Respondents John Wolfe, Warden of the Jessup Correctional Institution, and Douglas F. Gansler, the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, filed a Response addressing the substantive merits of Petitioner's remaining two claims: that his separate convictions and sentences for armed robbery and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence violate the principles of double jeopardy; and the trial court erred in informing the jury that he previously had been convicted of a felony when he was willing to stipulate that he had been convicted of a crime for which he was prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm.1 ECF No. 12. Petitioner has filed a Reply to the Response (ECF No. 20). After review, the court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing. SeeRule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011); see also Fisher v. Lee, 215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). For the reasons addressed herein, the Petition will be denied.2
On December 11, 2003, Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. ECF No. 9, Ex. 1-2. On February 17, 2004, the Court sentenced Petitioner to a total term of twenty-five years' incarceration, which included a five-year non-parolable sentence for the conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Id. A motion for modification of sentence was denied on March 19, 2004. Id., Ex. 1, p. 6. By an unreported opinion filed on January 19, 2006, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland vacated Petitioner's sentence for possession of a short-barreled shotgun on the ground that it should have been merged into his convictions for use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence or a felony, but otherwise affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., Ex. 2. The Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's request for certiorari review on May 12, 2006.3 Id., Ex. 3.
On November 17, 2006, Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Id., Ex. 1, p. 8. On August 11, 2008, the Circuit Court granted Petitioner'smotion to withdraw his post-conviction petition. Id., p. 10. On March 23, 2009, Petitioner reactivated post-conviction proceedings by filing an amended petition for post-conviction relief. Id. After holding a hearing on July 2, 2009, the Circuit Court denied post-conviction relief on October 14, 2009. Id., p. 11. Petitioner did not file an application for leave to appeal this Order within the 30 days required by law; however, on June 8, 2010, the Circuit Court issued an order deeming Riggins's application for leave to appeal the denial of post-conviction relief timely filed. Id., pp. 11-12. By unreported opinion filed on August 10, 2011, the Court of Special Appeals summarily denied the application for leave to appeal, with the court's mandate issuing on September 12, 2011. Id., Ex. 4.
On August 19, 2010, while his post-conviction proceedings were still pending, Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the Circuit Court, which was denied on August 25, 2010. Id., Ex. 1, p. 14. Petitioner appealed this ruling, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling in an unreported opinion filed on November 3, 2011. Id., Ex. 5. Petitioner's request for further review of this judgment by the Court of Appeals was denied on February 9, 2012. Id., Ex. 6.
The relevant facts adduced at trial and recounted by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland follow:
At the trial in December 2003, Robert Gordon testified that he owned Gordon's Cycle Shop on West 36th Street in Baltimore City, where he sold and repaired mopeds. At about 5:30 p.m. on May 8, 2003, Mr. Gordon and his wife, Katherine Gordon,2 were at work when a man, whom Mr. Gordon later identified as appellant, came into the shop, aimed a shotgun at Mr. Gordon's face, and told him to get off the telephone. Mrs. Gordon was seated nearby, working on the computer. When Mr. Gordon hesitated, appellant stated: "I'm not playing, get off the phone now." After Mr. Gordon hung up the phone, appellant ordered the Gordons into a storage room. Mr. Gordon observed another man with appellant. At trial, he identified Earl Jenkins as that man.
Mr. Gordon explained that he recognized appellant because he had beenin the Cycle Shop two other times that same day. The first time appellant entered the shop he spoke with Mrs. Gordon, and spent "close to an hour at the store." On that occasion, Mr. Gordon saw appellant "on a couple different occasions close up." Mr. Gordon explained that although he was busy with other customers, he "kept looking back in the store because my wife was in there alone and I like to keep an eye on her."
At approximately 5:00 p.m., appellant returned to the Cycle Shop for the second time. During this visit, Gordon assisted him in looking at helmets in a catalogue. Appellant also tried on a pair of gloves. Mr. Gordon estimated that appellant remained in the shop for fifteen to twenty minutes. Within ten minutes of appellant's departure from the store, he returned again, this time with a shotgun.
Mr. Gordon recalled that, once the Gordons were forced into the storage room, appellant handed the shotgun to Jenkins. Appellant then "made a lot of noise basically." When Mr. Gordon asked appellant what he was doing, appellant responded that he was "taking some mopeds out the front of the store." Using a chain from the wall, appellant attempted to chain the Gordons to some file cabinets in the storage room. When he was unable to do so, appellant directed the couple into the bathroom. Mr. Gordon saw appellant place the shotgun in a reddish colored gym bag before he shut the bathroom door. Appellant barricaded the bathroom door with a tool box and shelving.
After a few seconds, when Mr. Gordon no longer heard anything, he pushed his way out of the bathroom and "hit the alarm box." He recalled that Jenkins who was "around the corner," was, "startled by the alarm and he grabbed the bike and started running up eastward on 36th Street." Mr. Gordon ran out of the store, yelling that he was being robbed and that one of the men had a shotgun.
Initially, Mr. Gordon did not see appellant but, as he chased Jenkins, he saw Riggins on a blue moped at the corner of Roland Avenue and 36th Street, turning down Roland. Mr. Gordon chased Jenkins, who was running alongside the moped; Jenkins dropped the bike and ran around the corner at Roland Avenue. At that point, Mr. Gordon saw a policeman in a marked patrol car and informed him that he had just been robbed. The officer pursued and detained Jenkins.
According to Mr. Gordon, a paddy wagon "pulled up"4 about ten or fifteen minutes after the robbery. An officer opened the back door and asked Mr. Gordon, "is this the guy that robbed your store. . . ." Mr. Gordon answered, "yes, that's him." Mr. Gordon also identified the red bag that was found near appellant as the bag into which appellant had placed the shotgun. According to Mr. Gordon, appellant touched many things in the store during the course of the robbery including the mopeds, the chain, the file cabinet, andthe bathroom door.
Baltimore City Police Officer Andrew McCarty testified that, on the in question, he received a radio communication, about a robbery suspect in the area of West 36th Street. He located appellant in "a grassy area, weedy with bushes," approximately 240 yards from the corner of 36th Street and Roland Avenue; he was lying face down "in the weeds." Officer McCarty found "[l]ike a, sport bag, kind of reddish, maroon in color," situated about two to three feet from appellant. A sawed-off shotgun, five rounds, several screwdrivers, a wrench, and various other items were inside the bag. McCarty made an in-court identification of appellant as the man he found lying face down in the weeds.
Officer Hugh Carter testified that, on the date in question, he was on patrol on 36th Street when he observed one African-American male pushing a red scooter and a second African-American male on a blue scooter. The man on the blue scooter drove east on 36th Street, turned right onto Roland Avenue, and the officer lost sight of him. The other man dropped the red scooter and ran down Roland Avenue, where the officer apprehended him. Within seconds, Mr. Gordon approached and stated that his shop had just been held up by two black males armed with a sawed-off shotgun. Officer Carter then broadcast a description of the man on the blue scooter.
Officer Carter further recalled that, after appellant was apprehended and transported back to 36th Street, he advised the officer that "he lost his glasses when he was getting away in the alley." Appellant also stated that "he had a hard time seeing and he would appreciate it if we could get his glasses for him." From the alley where appellant was found the police recovered the blue scooter as well as a pair of wire-framed glasses that appellant identified as belonging to him.
Mrs. Gordon made an in-court identification of appellant as the robber. She testified that, on the date in question, she spent "at least an hour with" appellant "going over the
...
