Savage v. State, 1741 Sept. Term 2011.

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
Citation66 A.3d 1049,212 Md.App. 1
Docket NumberNo. 1741 Sept. Term 2011.,1741 Sept. Term 2011.
PartiesDeangelo Ferdale SAVAGE v. STATE of Maryland.
Decision Date29 May 2013

212 Md.App. 1
66 A.3d 1049

Deangelo Ferdale SAVAGE
STATE of Maryland.

No. 1741 Sept. Term 2011.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

May 29, 2013.

[66 A.3d 1052]

Lisa J. Sansone, Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.

Todd W. Hesel, (Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: MEREDITH, WOODWARD, JAMES A. KENNEY, III (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.


[212 Md.App. 6]Deangelo Ferdale Savage, appellant, was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County and convicted of various offenses arising out of his involvement in a burglary that occurred on December 17, 2010. In his timely appeal, appellant presents three questions for our review, which we have expanded into four and rephrased as follows:

1. Did appellant's two convictions for conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary offend double jeopardy principles?

2. Did the trial court err in not merging the conviction for accessory to first-degree burglary with the conviction(s) for conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary?

3. Did the trial court err in restricting the cross-examinations of Demarics Banks and Sergeant Chastity Blades?

[212 Md.App. 7]4. Did the trial court err in admitting evidence that the occupant of the burglarized home was killed?

For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm in part and remand in part the judgment of the circuit court.


Reginald Greene lived at 1704 Dale Lane in Salisbury, Maryland (“the Greene home”) with his sister Barbara Greene. When he returned home at approximately midnight on December 17, 2010, he noticed that “the back door was busted open.” Walking into the living room, he saw clothes “spread out in the hallway” and “a little blood.” Continuing into the kitchen, he found a rug that had been “pushed over,” and saw snow and footprints on the floor near the back door. He left the house and called the police, who responded and searched the Greene home. When Mr. Greene later returned to the house, he observed that the upstairs bedrooms were “tore up”—“[t]he doors was off the hinges,” “boxes and stuff was ransacked,” and “[t]he drawers was out, busted up.”

Sergeant Scott Cook, who responded to Mr. Greene's call, testified that the living room was “very neat” and the kitchen was “undisturbed,” but described Mr. Greene's bedroom as “ransacked. The drawers were pulled out, emptied, the closet doors were open, stuff was pulled out all over the

[66 A.3d 1053]

floor.” Ms. Greene's bedroom “wasn't nearly as ransacked,” but it appeared that somebody had “done a cursory-type search.” According to Sergeant Cook, Demarics Banks and Shawn Franklin “were the first two suspects that were developed,” and, later, appellant was developed as the third.

On December 23, 2010, Detective Chris Taylor 1 and Detective Tingle 2 interrogated appellant at the Wicomico County's Sheriff's Office. During that interrogation, according to Detective Taylor, appellant “was indicating that he didn't know [212 Md.App. 8]... who we were talking about” and that he “had no involvement whatsoever.”

Sergeant Steve Hall testified that he watched the detectives' interrogation “from another room.” After it was over, he and Sergeant Chastity Blades had an impromptu conversation with appellant, which he recounted to the prosecutor at trial:

[Sergeant Hall]: I believe [appellant] said that he had talked to Demarics Banks and Shawn Franklin about committing a burglary at [the Greene home].

* * *

He said that Banks and Franklin were pushing him to take them to where the [Greene home] was....

[Prosecutor]: Did he acknowledge that he had assisted them in planning the burglary?

[Sergeant Hall]: Yes.

[Prosecutor]: Did he acknowledge that he and [Tavonne Clark–Smith, who dated appellant after ending a romantic relationship with Mr. Greene,] took [Banks] to show them where the [home] was located?

[Sergeant Hall]: Yes, they actually rode by the [home] and he identified the [home] for Banks and Franklin.

[Prosecutor]: Did he say anything with respect to his involvement in the burglary?

[Sergeant Hall]: He wasn't involved in the burglary. He said that he had backed out at the last minute before they went and actually committed the burglary.

Regarding that same conversation, Sergeant Blades testified:

[Appellant] at first, denied any involvement in the burglary, and then admitted that he had contact with both Demarics Banks and Shawn Franklin, about committing the burglary. More so with Demarics Banks and that they had agreed that there would be a burglary, that would occur, that no one was supposed to be home. There wasn't an agreement as to what portion he would get of the burglary, but there [212 Md.App. 9]was an agreement that he would get something out of the burglary.

* * *

He further went on to say that Tavonne Clark–Smith had dated, I believe, it was Reginald Greene and that Demarics Banks and Shawn Franklin knew that she had dated him and ... believed that ... she would know where he lived and wanted her to ... drive them by there.

[Prosecutor]: Did he acknowledge that she did, in fact, do that?

[Sergeant Blades]: Yes, he did.

[Prosecutor]: Did he acknowledge that he was present when that occurred?

[Sergeant Blades]: Yes, he did.

[Prosecutor]: Did he say anything to you about trying to change his mind?

[66 A.3d 1054]

[Sergeant Blades]: He said that he did change his mind but that he did not relay that to Demarics Banks or Shawn Franklin. He said that he had changed his mind prior to the burglary occurring but that he had not relayed that to anyone.

Clark–Smith testified that appellant “kept asking [her] over and over and over again” where Mr. Greene lived, but she never asked why he wanted to know. Finally, during a car ride a few weeks before the burglary, she pointed out the location of the Greene home to appellant and Banks.3

Banks, who cooperated as a State's witness in accordance with a plea agreement, testified:

• “the plan to burglarize the [Greene] home” was “originally between [appellant] and [Franklin]”;

• Banks did not “get any of the information about the [Greene home] and the money”—including the location of the Greene home, the amount of money therein [212 Md.App. 10](approximately $65,000), or the exact location of that money (in the “ [b]ottom drawer of [a] dresser”)—“from anybody other than” appellant, 4 with whom he “discussed” the burglary plan “[o]nce or twice” and with whom he would “split that money”;

• Clark–Smith had pointed out the location of the Greene home when she, he, and appellant had driven by it;

• appellant “asked [him] to do” the robbery, but Banks did not “let [appellant] know that” he was “going to do it that night.” Instead, he “called [Franklin],” and they agreed that they would just “tell [appellant] when [they] did it”;

• Franklin already knew about the Greene home and the money, but Franklin didn't tell him that until “after the fact”; and

• he and Franklin together burglarized the Greene home. Afterwards, they went to appellant's home and told appellant that the burglary had been unsuccessful.

Franklin, appellant's only witness, testified that: (1) he received his information about the burglary from Banks; (2) he never discussed the burglary with appellant; and (3) appellant did not play “any role in this burglary.” On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Franklin about contradictions between this testimony and statements he had made during a December 23, 2010 interview with Detective Taylor. In that interview, the transcript of which was entered into evidence, Franklin stated that:

• there was a conversation in which Clark–Smith “told me there's a lot of cash somewhere.” Franklin asked appellant, who he knew as “D,” 5 “so you going to put me on to that, what you was talking about? [Appellant] was like no, you got to give me some time.... I was keeping [212 Md.App. 11]asking, but he never—you know, but then like down the line, he ... told Banks and shit”;

• he “kn[e]w nothing about” money being inside the Greene home until he “and Banks talked about it Wednesday[, December 15, 2010] by ourselves” at 407 Hastings Street, which

[66 A.3d 1055]

Franklin identified as appellant's residence. According to Franklin, Banks had stated that appellant had told Banks about the money;

• on Thursday, December 16,6 there was another conversation at 407 Hastings Street among Franklin, Banks, and appellant regarding the robbery plan. According to Franklin, appellant “didn't really say nothing, only—but only about the cash. He's saying, yeah, it's there, where it was at and everything.... It was right—it's in the bottom of the drawer where all the envelopes and stuff at”;

• the robbery was originally planned for Thursday night, “[b]ut I had to ... babysit my son the whole night, so we didn't do nothing”;

• appellant “wasn't going to” participate in the actual robbery attempt, and thus, although appellant “probably knew [the burglary] was going to go down,” “[h]e probably ain't know for real” exactly when it was going to occur;

• although appellant had instructed Banks “to go by himself” on the robbery, Banks “took [Franklin] anyway” on Friday, December 17, without telling appellant. “But at first he wouldn't take me because he had to break off [appellant]. But he was like, fuck it, he just break it off on his half.” In other words, Banks and Franklin were going to “split it down the middle,” and “Banks was going to give [appellant] out of his cut” in return for the information about the Greene home; and

• [212 Md.App. 12]after the robbery attempt, Banks and Franklin went to 407 Hastings Street, and appellant was “angry because he thought we got something[.]”

Appellant was convicted of: (1) two counts of conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary (2) two counts of conspiracy to commit third-degree burglary, (3) one count of accessory before the fact to first-degree burglary, and (4) one count of accessory before the fact to third-degree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • Molina v. State, 2380, 2537 Sept. Term, 2017
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 23 December 2019
    ...a defendant for more than one conspiracy turns, therefore, "on whether there exists more than one unlawful agreement." Savage v. State , 212 Md. App. 1, 13, 66 A.3d 1049 (2013). It is the State's "burden to prove the agreement or agreements underlying a conspiracy prosecution." Id. at 14, 6......
  • In re Jayden G., 84
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 16 July 2013
    ...“the best interests of the child do not permit the juvenile court to ignore the reality of a child's life.” Ashley S., 431 Md. at 724, 66 A.3d at 1049. The court is not required to disregard “the existing attachment and emotional ties and, instead, imagine what those ties might have [70 A.3......
  • Bellard v. State, 1281 Sept. Term, 2014
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 31 August 2016
    ...person each. Accordingly, we vacate two of the conspiracy convictions and corresponding consecutive life sentences. See Savage v. State, 212 Md.App. 1, 26, 66 A.3d 1049 (2013).C. The Trial Court Properly Admitted Testimony Of The State's Expert Witness.Third, Mr. Bellard argues that the "ci......
  • In re Ashley S., 4
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 30 May 2013
    ...Id. The Majority does not pause to explain what it has in mind when it says “normally,” how diminished this value must be, or how a [66 A.3d 1049]juvenile court is to calculate it, without engaging in the impossible “mental gymnastics” criticized one page earlier. This “diminished value” st......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT