State v. Lock

• Decision Date: 07 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. 2011AP699–CR.,2011AP699–CR.
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Michael Anthony LOCK, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

344 Wis.2d 166

823 N.W.2d 378

2012 WI App 99

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Michael Anthony LOCK, Defendant–Appellant.^†

No. 2011AP699–CR.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs May 8, 2012.

Opinion Filed Aug. 7, 2012.

On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Jerome F. Buting of Buting & Williams, S.C. of Milwaukee.

On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general and James M. Freimuth, assistant attorney general.

Before FINE, KESSLER and BRENNAN, JJ.

BRENNAN, J.

[344 Wis.2d 174]¶ 1 Michael Anthony Lock appeals from judgments entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree intentional homicide, kidnapping while armed, and possession with intent to deliver more than forty grams of cocaine, all as party to a crime, and from an order denying his postconviction motion. Lock generally complains that the trial court improperly admitted other-acts evidence at trial and that the State violated its discovery obligations. We conclude, for reasons set forth in more detail below, that no improper other-acts evidence was admitted, or that if it was, the evidence otherwise amassed against Lock was so great that the admission of any such improper evidence was harmless. Furthermore, we conclude that the postconviction court did not erroneously find that the State disclosed all necessary information to the defense, and that if the State did violate its discovery obligations, its omissions were harmless. As such, we affirm.

Background

The Complaints

¶ 2 In July 2007, the State filed a criminal complaint, charging Lock with one count of kidnapping while armed, one count of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver more than forty grams of cocaine, and one count of racketeering activity, all as party to a crime. The complaint alleged that in May 2002 Lock and several co-defendants kidnapped, tortured, and robbed Leoporium Ford during a cocaine deal. The racketeering charge against Lock stemmed from a belief, based on the alleged crimes contained in the criminal complaint, that between January 2002 and July 2007 Lock engaged in multiple acts of distribution of controlled substances, kidnapping, and armed robbery.

¶ 3 In October 2007, the State filed a second criminal complaint against Lock and a co-defendant, charging him with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide for the August 1999 death of Felipe Armondo Melendez–Rivas and the April 2000 death of Eugene Chaney.

Pretrial Motions

¶ 4 In December 2007, prior to trial, Lock moved the trial court to exclude from admission at trial any evidence of other crimes and acts unrelated to the charges. The State responded that it did “not intend to use other acts evidence except as they pertain to the specific crimes in which the defendant is charged. There is no intention to introduce evidence of fraud, theft, or distribution of [a] controlled substance except as they pertain to the charges that are before the court for trial.” Apparently concluding that the State's response rendered Lock's motion moot, the trial court did not rule upon the motion and defense counsel did not press the trial court for a ruling on the matter.

¶ 5 Also in December 2007, the State moved for the two cases against Lock to be consolidated for trial. In a hearing on the motion, Lock objected to the State's request for consolidation on grounds that the racketeering charge would present prejudicial and irrelevant evidence with respect to the two first-degree intentional homicide charges. The State agreed to drop the racketeering charge upon consolidation of the cases, and the trial court granted the State's request to consolidate.

Trial

¶ 6 The case against Lock proceeded to trial in July 2008. The amended information contained five charges against Lock, including two counts of first-degree intentional homicide (one each for the deaths of Melendez–Rivas and Chaney), one count of kidnapping, one count of possession with intent to deliver more than forty grams of cocaine, and one count of aggravated battery, all as party to a crime. Prior to trial, the State agreed to drop the aggravated battery charge against Lock, and proceeded only on counts one through four. The following evidence was elicited at trial.

The Ford Kidnapping

¶ 7 Ford,¹ an admitted drug dealer, testified at trial that on May 11, 2002, Lock kidnapped him and robbed him of a half kilogram (approximately eighteen ounces) of cocaine. Ford testified that his associate, Antwon Sanders,² acting as the middleman, set up a meeting between Ford and Ed Hankins, Jr., Lock's brother-in-law. At the meeting, Ford arranged to sell Hankins, Jr., a half kilogram of cocaine.

¶ 8 Sanders corroborated much of Ford's testimony, testifying that Hankins, Jr., approached him looking for cocaine for “him and his guy.” Sanders stated that Hankins, Jr., introduced Sanders to Lock, who agreed to buy a half kilogram of cocaine from Ford for $13,000.

¶ 9 Hankins, Jr.,³ testified that Lock asked him for help robbing Ford, because Lock believed Ford “was a big-time drug dealer.” Hankins, Jr., agreed to help and testified that he approached Sanders, who he believed was selling cocaine for Ford, to set up a deal. Hankins, Jr., stated that Sanders was aware of the plan to rob Ford.

¶ 10 Ford testified that on the day of the robbery he met up with his cousin, Desha Cox,⁴ who had come to repay Ford $3000 he was owed and who accompanied him to a residence at 4720 North 53rd Street (“the 53rd Street house”) to complete the drug transaction with Lock. Sanders was supposed to meet Ford at the house, but never arrived. Ford and Cox both testified that when they arrived at the 53rd Street house, Hankins, Jr., pulled a TEC–9 machine gun on them, while several other men grabbed them, bound their arms and legs with wire hangers, and duct taped their eyes and mouths. Ford said that the men took the cocaine he had brought to sell to Lock.

¶ 11 Hankins, Jr., testified that Lock, Donald Cooper, and Carl Davis (Lock's uncle) were all part of the group of men who ambushed Ford and Cox and that Lock had a .40–caliber automatic handgun. Hankins, Jr., told the jury that Lock and Cooper “slammed” Ford down, “taped him up,” and “savagely” beat Ford, while Ford pleaded for his life. Hankins, Jr., further testified that, acting on Lock's orders, he demanded more drugs from Ford. Hankins, Jr., said that Lock instructed him “to threaten [Ford] and let him know that we [are] the Body Snatchers ... we rob people and ... if they don't comply, they come up missing.”

¶ 12 Ford testified that he heard “grease popping,” after which his pants and shirt were torn, and hot grease was poured on his skin. Photographs showed burn scars on Ford's legs. Ford stated that he also suffered “two slipped dis [c]s” in his back, bruised ribs, and a swollen face from the beating. Ford also testified that he recognized Lock's voice during the robbery, having previously gambled with Lock and having seen Lock when an acquaintance of Ford's was hired to do “lead abatement” work on property Ford believed Lock owned.

¶ 13 Cox testified that, at some point during the robbery, he was taken downstairs, and the tape over his eyes was removed, enabling him to recognize Lock and Cooper. Cox said he was overjoyed to see Cooper, a longtime friend, and that he offered to get Cooper the $3000 that he had given to Ford earlier that day. Davis and Cox testified that Lock accompanied Cox to get the money. Cox testified that when he and Lock returned to the 53rd Street house, he and Ford were released.

¶ 14 Milwaukee Police Detective David Baker testified that nine days after the kidnapping, he arrested Lock and Davis after a controlled drug buy and found two bags of cocaine, totaling about nine ounces or a quarter kilogram (approximately one-half of the amount stolen from Ford), in Davis's jacket. Later that day, police executed a search warrant at Lock's 53rd Street house and found a .9mm pistol, plastic bags, scales, and documents in Lock's name and his wife's name.

The Melendez–Rivas Homicide

¶ 15 Frisco Richardson (Lock's cousin) testified at trial that he worked for Lock doing home-improvement work. He stated that in August 1999, he was among several people in the backyard of a home he believed was owned by Lock at 4900 West Fiebrantz Street (“the Fiebrantz house”) when Lock asked him to help Davis dig a hole. Richardson further stated that Lock offered him $200 for his work, but that instead, Richardson accepted a van. Richardson said that he was told that the hole “was for a concrete slab to put two doghouses on,” but that the hole was deeper than needed for that purpose.

¶ 16 Davis ⁵ testified that Lock asked him and Richardson to dig the hole six feet deep. He said Lock expected “to get a big payday” and that Lock controlled both the 53rd Street and Fiebrantz houses in 1999 and 2000.

¶ 17 Juan Terrazas testified at trial that he was Melendez–Rivas's roommate in August 1999, and that on August 10, 1999, Melendez–Rivas left their home in Illinois with Terrazas's car, which contained Terrazas's cell phone. Melendez–Rivas never returned.

¶ 18 Benny Kern ⁶ testified that in 1999 he acted as a “middleman to a lot of [drug] deals” between Melendez–Rivas and Lock. Kern said Melendez–Rivas would seek to distribute kilograms of cocaine and that Lock would find buyers.

¶ 19 At trial, Davis described the last such meeting between Melendez–Rivas and Lock. Davis testified that he and Lock met Melendez–Rivas at a restaurant off of the interstate. Davis said Melendez–Rivas was dropped off in a vehicle from which Melendez–Rivas retrieved a white box, purportedly containing twenty kilograms of cocaine. Davis said Melendez–Rivas wanted to party and accompanied him and Lock back to Milwaukee. According to Davis, Lock dropped Davis off at his home and said he would call Davis if he needed help...