State v. Smith, 563, Sept. Term, 2013.
Decision Date | 27 May 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 563, Sept. Term, 2013.,563, Sept. Term, 2013. |
Citation | 223 Md.App. 16,115 A.3d 210 |
Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Zenno SMITH, III. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Mary Ann Ince (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.
Brian L. Zavin (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Panel: NAZARIAN, LEAHY, and RAYMOND G. THIEME, JR. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
RAYMOND G. THIEME, JR., J. (Retired, specially assigned).
Following a jury trial on January 6–8, 2009, Zenno Smith, III, appellee, was convicted of first-degree felony murder, first-degree burglary, and possession of a handgun after having been convicted of a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and a consecutive term of five years for possession of a handgun. The burglary conviction was merged for sentencing purposes. Smith's convictions were affirmed by this Court in an unreported opinion, Zenno Smith, III v. State, No. 184, Sept. Term 2009 (filed September 29, 2010). Smith filed a petition for writ of certiorari that was denied by the Court of Appeals. See Smith v. State, 417 Md. 502, 10 A.3d 1181 (2011).
Thereafter, Smith filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief. On April 15, 2013, the Circuit Court for Caroline County granted Smith's petition. The State filed an application for leave to appeal, which we granted.
The State presents the following questions for our consideration:
For the reasons set forth more fully below, we shall affirm.
Smith was charged in the Circuit Court for Caroline County with the following crimes arising out of the shooting death of Ronald Gibson on June 15, 2008:
We provided a detailed recitation of the underlying facts in our unreported opinion on direct appeal, which we include here for ease of reference:
Appellant did not testify or present any witnesses.
Throughout the trial, the State proceeded on the theory of first-degree felony murder based on the statutory felony of first-degree burglary. Smith's defense was that all of the parties had gone to the victim's residence solely for a peaceful encounter with the victim, to talk, and to “mend fences,” and that Smith did not “want anything to do with a confrontation, that's not why he was there.” At the conclusion of the State's case, and after the court's denial of Smith's motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the burglary and felony murder charges, the State advised the court that it would enter nolle prosequis for the counts charging second-degree felony murder, first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. The prosecutor commented that those charges were not lesser included offenses of felony murder and that they “could have been presented but ... they raise an entire spectrum of imperfect third person self defense which will not apply to felony murder and that's the State's reason for, simplifying what is, you know, certainly, honestly a complex although in some ways simple and some ways complex case.” Trial counsel did not object to the State's request to enter nolle prosequis for the four counts. Subsequently, the State also entered a nolle prosequi as to the charge of accessory after the fact to second-degree murder. Ultimately, Smith was convicted of first-degree felony murder, first- degree burglary, and possession of a handgun after having been convicted of a felony.
Smith sought post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the following reasons:
The post-conviction court found that Smith's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the State's entry of nolle prosequis for five of the charges against him and, thereby,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Newton v. State
..." Oken v. State , 343 Md. 256, 284, 681 A.2d 30 (1996) (quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). State v. Smith , 223 Md.App. 16, 26–27, 115 A.3d 210 (2015) (last alteration in original). I will begin with deficient performance. Maryland Rule 4–311(b) provides that a jury in ......
-
State v. Newton
...facts will be discussed as necessary in the discussion that follows. STANDARD OF REVIEW Recently, in State v. Smith , 223 Md.App. 16, 26–27, 115 A.3d 210 (2015), this Court set forth the applicable standard for reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal from a grant of ......
-
State v. Simms
...included offense." Burrell v. State , 340 Md. 426, 434, 667 A.2d 161, 164–65 (1995) (italics in original); see State v. Smith , 223 Md.App. 16, 31, 115 A.3d 210, 219 (2015) (describing the standard as whether "the evidence [is] sufficient for the jury to convict on that offense and the evid......
-
State v. Simms
...included offense." Burrell v. State, 340 Md. 426, 434, 667 A.2d 161, 164-65 (1995) (italics in original); see State v. Smith, 223 Md. App. 16, 31, 115 A.3d 210, 219 (2015) (describing the standard as whether "the evidence [is] sufficient for the jury to convict on that offense and the evide......