State v. Wilburn

Decision Date23 September 2022
Docket Number1346-21,1347-21
PartiesSTATE OF MARYLAND v. STACEY ERIC WILBURN
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case Nos C-02-CR-17-000406, C-02-CR-17-000407

Beachley, Tang, Woodward, Patrick L. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION [*]

BEACHLEY, J.

In two separate trials before the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, juries convicted appellee Stacey Eric Wilburn of armed robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, and other related offenses arising out of two robberies he committed on the same day.[1] Appellee filed petitions for post-conviction relief in both cases, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court granted appellee's petitions, and the State filed this timely appeal, challenging the post-conviction court's finding of ineffective assistance of counsel in both cases.

We shall reverse and hold that appellee did not adequately establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 27, 2017, appellee went to Maryland Live! Casino shortly before 6:00 a.m. to play blackjack and lost $1,100. He left the casino sometime before 9:00 a.m. in a white Nissan Pathfinder. At the same time, Teresita Schell was leaving a nearby grocery store. Appellee followed Ms Schell's vehicle to her home. When she exited her vehicle, appellee pointed a gun at her and demanded cash. Ms. Schell gave him her cell phone and her purse. Appellee returned the cell phone, but took cash out of the purse and left in his vehicle.

At approximately 6:45 p.m. the same day, appellee committed another armed robbery in Howard County, which is not part of this appeal. He returned to the casino shortly after 7:00 p.m. and stayed there until approximately 8:00 p.m., at which point he followed Kum Hernandez, a casino employee, to her home. When Ms. Hernandez exited her vehicle, appellee ran up to her and pointed a gun at her, demanding her purse. Ms. Hernandez attempted to run away, but appellee pushed her and grabbed her purse. He then ran back to his vehicle and drove away. As he drove to the casino for a third time that day, he threw Ms. Hernandez's phone and purse out of his vehicle, where they were later found along the side of the road.

Appellee was arrested the next day when he was pulled over after making an illegal left turn. A handgun and ammunition were found inside his vehicle. During a police interview after his arrest, appellee confessed to robbing both women.

I. TRIAL FOR ROBBERY OF MS. SCHELL

The trial for the robbery of Ms. Schell began on October 19, 2017. Before the trial began, defense counsel provided the court with a list of requested voir dire and jury instructions. During voir dire, the circuit court asked the venire two questions that are at issue in this appeal. First, the court asked:

Does any member of this panel have strong feelings regarding possession of firearms -- and I'm going to add, to the point where it would affect your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict based only on the evidence that you hear?

Defense counsel had requested a substantially similar question.[2] The question elicited no affirmative response from the venire. The court later asked another question that was substantially similar to one defense counsel had requested:

Does any member of this panel or your immediate family work in the federal government in any agency that would affect your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict? Any people who has an immediate family member works for the federal government that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial.[3]

Two prospective jurors responded to this question. Juror 31 stated: "Although I don't think that I would not be able to give an impartial verdict, I am an analyst in the National Security Agency." Juror 20 similarly indicated that he worked for the National Security Agency, and that his employment would not impact his ability to be fair and impartial.

Ms. Schell testified on the first day of trial and identified appellee as the individual who robbed her. She testified that, at the time of the robbery, the weather was sunny, and she had an unimpeded view of the assailant. Additionally, Ms. Schell testified that the police had shown her a photo array on January 30, 2017, and she selected appellee's photo, indicating at that time that she was "certain it's him." Detective Jeff Golas, who presented the photo array to Ms. Schell, testified that Ms. Schell "was certain when she saw the photograph."

The State presented video from a neighbor's home security system, which showed Ms. Schell's vehicle driving toward her house, and then "seconds later," a white Nissan Pathfinder traveling in the same direction. A short time later, the same white Nissan Pathfinder drove back in the opposite direction. Neither the driver nor the license plate of the Pathfinder is visible in the video, but when detectives showed appellee a still image from the video, appellee admitted that it was his vehicle.

The State also presented portions of a video of a police interview with appellee. During the interview, appellee admitted "that he pointed a gun at the victim and told her to give him . . . her purse." At that point, the police had not told appellee that the victim stated the assailant pointed a gun at her, and had not mentioned anything about a purse.

Appellee's fiancee, Sharee Vance, testified that their household had not been having any financial difficulties in January 2017, and that they did not have any "problems" related to appellee's gambling. However, on cross examination, Ms. Vance admitted that she and appellee had had difficulty obtaining $1,000 for appellee's bail. Despite appellee's admission that the Nissan Pathfinder was his vehicle, Ms. Vance questioned whether the Nissan Pathfinder seen in the neighbor's home security video was actually appellee's vehicle. Additionally, Ms. Vance testified on cross examination that she contacted someone from appellee's employer after he was arrested and falsely told that person that appellee would not be coming in to work because he was in the hospital. Appellee declined to testify.

Defense counsel's requested jury instructions included Maryland Pattern Jury Instruction-Criminal (“MPJI-Cr”) 3:17 Election of Defendant Not To Testify. However, the court did not read that instruction to the jury, and defense counsel did not raise any objection to its omission.

After nearly four hours of deliberation, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all counts. Appellee was later sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for armed robbery, with all but 7 years suspended, and a concurrent 12 years' imprisonment for use of a firearm in a crime of violence, with all but 5 years suspended. Appellee did not appeal these convictions.

II. TRIAL FOR ROBBERY OF MS. HERNANDEZ

The trial for the robbery of Ms. Hernandez began on January 9, 2018. During voir dire, the circuit court asked two questions also at issue in this appeal. First, the court asked:

Does any member of the prospective jury panel have any political, religious, or philosophical beliefs about our system of criminal justice which would make you hesitate to sit as a juror in this case? Any such beliefs that would impact your ability to be fair and impartial?

Defense counsel did not raise any objection to this question. The court later asked a question substantively similar to one defense counsel had requested:

Are there any members of the jury panel who have such strong feelings about the nature of the charges in this case, and more specifically, the alleged use of a handgun, that it would impact your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict?[4]

No jurors responded to either question.

Ms. Hernandez testified on the first day of trial and identified appellee as the individual who robbed her. She testified that her driveway had a motion-detecting light that was on at the time of the robbery, and she saw appellee's face "very clearly."

The State presented surveillance video from the casino showing Ms. Hernandez's vehicle leaving the parking deck, followed shortly thereafter by appellee driving a white Nissan Pathfinder. By the time Ms. Hernandez's and appellee's vehicles reached the exit of the parking deck, there were four vehicles between them. At the exit, while the line of vehicles was stopped, appellee maneuvered his vehicle into a lane intended for incoming traffic, then reversed back into the proper lane when another vehicle began coming toward him. Ms. Hernandez made a right turn onto the roadway, as did one of the vehicles behind her. Shortly thereafter, appellee also turned right onto the roadway and crossed a double yellow line to pass the vehicle between his Pathfinder and Ms. Hernandez's vehicle.

The State also presented over an hour and a half of the approximately two-hour police interview of appellee. Portions of the video that referenced Ms. Schell's case were redacted. During the interview, appellee confessed to robbing Ms. Hernandez, and correctly described her as "an Asian woman," even though police had not given appellee a description of the victim. He also correctly described Ms. Hernandez's vehicle as "dark" in color.

Detective Renko testified that Ms. Hernandez was shown a photo array the day after the incident, but she was unable to identify any of the individuals in the array as her assailant. However, Detective Renko testified that Ms. Hernandez "paused on [appellee's photo] for a long time," and did not pause on any other photos.

Appellee testified that, at the time of the robberies, he was earning $77,000 per year and Ms. Vance was earning $55,000 per year. According to his testimony, in December of 2...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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