State v. Watkins

• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Opinion by Shaw Geter, J.
• Decision Date: 04 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1509,No. 1510,No. 1511,CONSOLIDATED CASES No. 1508,1509,1510,1511
• Citation: State v. Watkins, CONSOLIDATED CASES No. 1508, No. 1509, No. 1510 (Md. App. Dec 04, 2020)
• Parties: STATE OF MARYLAND v. DESHAWN WATKINS STATE OF MARYLAND v. MANDEL GREENE STATE OF MARYLAND v. CARLOS GREENE STATE OF MARYLAND v. DIANTE BREWER

STATE OF MARYLAND v. DESHAWN WATKINS

STATE OF MARYLAND v. MANDEL GREENE

STATE OF MARYLAND v. CARLOS GREENE

STATE OF MARYLAND v. DIANTE BREWER

CONSOLIDATED CASES No. 1508

No. 1509

No. 1510

No. 1511

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

December 4, 2020

Circuit Court for Prince George's County

Case Nos. CT190638B, CT190638C, CT190638D, CT190638A

UNREPORTED

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Berger, Shaw Geter, Raker, Irma E. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Shaw Geter, J.

In 2017, appellees, Diante Brewer, Carlos Greene, Mandel Greene, and Deshawn Watkins, were indicted in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County for the murder of Douglas Brooks. For various reasons, each case was continued multiple times and on the final trial date for each respective appellee, the State entered a nolle prosequi as to all charges. On June 11, 2019, appellees were again indicted for the murder of Brooks. In the second set of cases, the four original co-defendants as well as an additional defendant, Kevin Baldwin, were identified as co-conspirators. Appellees, respectively, filed motions to dismiss the charges and following a joint hearing where appellees argued for dismissal of their charges, the circuit court granted the motions and dismissed all charges with prejudice. These timely appeals followed.

Appellant presents the following question for our review:

1. Did the circuit court err in dismissing the indictment(s) on constitutional speedy trial grounds?

For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2016, Prince George's County police officers responded to a call and found Douglas Brooks lying on a sidewalk suffering from multiple gunshot wounds to his upper body. Medics arrived but were unable to resuscitate him. An autopsy later determined Brooks' cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and the manner of death was homicide. The police investigation revealed that prior to the murder, a vehicle arrived at the crime scene and four or five men got out of the vehicle, approached Brooks, and began shooting him. Police later connected Diante Brewer, Mandel Greene, CarlosGreene, and Deshawn Watkins to the murder. Appellees, respectively, were charged with seven counts: (1) murder; (2-3) two counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence or felony; (4) robbery with a dangerous weapon; (5) conspiracy to commit murder; (6) conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon; and (7) possession of a regulated firearm under the age of 21 years.

(As to Appellee Watkins Only)

Appellee Watkins was arrested on March 1, 2017 and indicted on March 23, 2017. A motions hearing and trial date were scheduled to begin on October 2, 2017. At the motions hearing, both the State and defense requested a continuance of the trial date, which was granted by the court. Appellee waived Hicks on the record and in writing and a new motions hearing and trial date were set for March 14 and March 26, 2018.¹ On the motions date, however, a newly appointed defense counsel requested a continuance, indicating that he had just been repaneled for the case one week prior to the hearing and there was "a lotof discovery to go over." The State did not object and the court granted the continuance, as a "[c]ourt's continuance to the trial date . . . in order for counsel to be appointed." On March 26, 2018, appellee's counsel requested a continuance of the trial and his request was granted by the court. A new motions hearing was scheduled for May 18, 2018 and the trial was scheduled for August 6, 2018.

On August 2, 2018, the defense filed a written motion to continue the August 6, 2018 trial date, citing two reasons: (1) an eyewitness contacted defense counsel regarding testimony in appellee's favor; and (2) defense counsel recently learned that DNA found on a handgun recovered in a District of Columbia case might constitute exculpatory evidence. The court granted appellee's third continuance request and trial was set for October 15, 2018. Appellee then requested a fourth continuance, stating they were awaiting further discovery; specifically, crime scene photos, a transcript from the State, and appellee was also considering a plea offer. Defense also indicated that the State was waiting on discovery as well. The State joined in the continuance request.

A fifth trial date was scheduled for March 18, 2019, and the State moved for a continuance arguing it had been unable to obtain the DNA analysis of the handgun recovered in the District of Columbia case that forensically linked the gun to one of the weapons used in Brooks' murder. The following colloquy occurred:

The Court: —before you found out the results of the analysis, he was charged with this case, correct?

State: That is correct.

The Court: So you had sufficient evidence at that time that you felt you could go forward on the charges before you knew the DNA?

State: There is other evidence, but this evidence is particularly probative. And in light of expectations that juries have with respect to a DNA analysis, I believe that it really is essential to the State's case. We have evidence that places him on the scene, and we have evidence of him coming out of an alley where a handgun was found, but this evidence is incredibly probative in terms of linking Mr. Watkins definitively to that handgun because again this isn't a situation where the gun was found on his person. It's not even a situation where a police officer could testify that he saw Mr. Watkins drop or dispose of the gun. An officer could only testify that he saw Mr. Watkins and another individual in the area, that he saw them go in the alley . . .

* * *

The Court: In an alley in the District of Columbia?

State: It's in the District of Columbia.

The Court: Right

* * *

The Court: Okay. All of this is in 2016, even the recovery of this gun in the alley, all of this, the incident in the District of Columbia? Are you saying—yeah. Okay . . .

* * *

State: The recovery of the gun was in November, the end of November 2016.

The Court: Okay. And for two years, they had this gun and the results, and they've not been willing to share it with you?

State: That is correct. D.C. has not been willing to provide this information to Prince George's County. However, through essentially a personal connection in the U.S. Attorney's Office I have obtained this report, and I do want to use it at trial. I think it's very obviously probative. In an interest of allowing the State to have all of the possible evidence to present to a jury so that a fact finder can have all of the available evidence to best reach a verdictin this case, I am asking to be able to have a continuance to be able to use this evidence . . .

* * *

Defense Counsel: . . . What happens then is that January 20, 2017, this report is generated. When the testing is actually done, it had to be between October 2016 and January 20, 2017. A report is created whereby they say that my client's DNA, it would have been one—for African Americans, one in 1.22 thousand . . . My client is picked up and brought in February 23, 2017. He's been in custody since then. I believe it's the same day he is brought in, he is interviewed at length by Detectives Boulden and Cruz. There's a long video . . . In that interview, Detective Boulden . . . confronts my client with the fact that his DNA was on the—was found on the gun. Okay. So—although nothing has ever been—nothing's provided to us until February of this year. So he obviously had—he had knowledge of it. He's a Prince George's County detective and he had knowledge of it going back to at least February 23, 2017, if not earlier . . .

* * *

The Court: Let me ask you this. He says that in the interview, on the tape, the detective confronts him with the fact that his DNA is on the weapon, yes or no? Does he—

* * *

State: I don't know if he was making it up. He certainly didn't have this report to be able to say that.

* * *

The Court: . . . And now you think that a continuance will allow you to do what?

State: To meet my obligations under the statute, which is to provide the source material to the defense so that I can actually use this evidence in trial.

The Court: What makes you think you're going to be able to get that here? It is in Utah? . . .

* * *

State: Yes. I've been in contact with the lab and with the specific analysts in the case. They will come and testify. They have provided our office with estimates, and our office has approved the expenditure.

The State then indicated they had extended a cooperation offer to appellee and agreed he could be released on electronic monitoring pending sentencing. The court denied the State's request for a continuance and the State entered a nolle prosequi as to all charges. Appellee noted his demand for a speedy trial.

(As to Appellee Mandel Greene Only)

Appellee Mandel Greene was arrested on July 12, 2017 and indicted on September 5, 2017. A motions hearing and trial date were scheduled to begin on January 26, 2018. At the motions hearing, the State requested a joint continuance, which was granted by the court. Appellee waived Hicks on the record and in writing and a new motions hearing and trial date were set for July 16, 2018. On the trial date, however, appellee entered an Alford plea and defense counsel requested a presentence investigation (PSI).²

At the sentencing hearing on October 17, 2018, defense counsel requested a continuance because the PSI had not been completed. A new sentencing date was scheduled for December 17, 2018. On that date, defense counsel sought another continuance stating that she needed more time to review the PSI. Defense also filed a written motion to withdraw appellee's Alford plea on December...