Stone v. State

• Decision Date: 29 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1621,1621
• Parties: ROBERT WILLIAM STONE, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

ROBERT WILLIAM STONE, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1621

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2014

July 29, 2016

UNREPORTED

Leahy, ^*Zarnoch, Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Leahy, J.

^*Zarnoch, Robert A., J., participated in the conference of this case while an active member of this Court; he participated in the adoption of this opinion as a retired, specially assigned member of this Court.

**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.

The principal issue on appeal is whether the Circuit Court for Howard County erred or abused its discretion in accepting the defendant's waiver of counsel and in subsequently proceeding to try him in absentia. The record establishes that Appellant, Robert William Stone, Jr. ("Stone"), has a history of manipulating the criminal justice system by engaging in tactics—including feigning illness—to delay his hearings and trials. Following a jury trial (part of which was tried without Stone present), Stone was found guilty of first-degree burglary, third-degree burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft of property worth less than $1,000.00. In his timely filed appeal, Stone raises three questions for our consideration:

I. Did the lower court erroneously deprive Stone of his right to counsel?

II. Did the lower court err in trying Stone in absentia?

III. Did the lower court err in refusing to ask prospective jurors if their spouses had ever worked in law enforcement?

Discerning no reversible error or abuse of discretion, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

According to the testimony presented at trial, on September 12, 2012, Mrs. Leleh Alemzadeh parked her family vehicle—a green 1999 Toyota Sienna—in the driveway in front of the family home. Early the next morning, Mrs. Alemzadeh's daughter opened the garage door to go to school, and discovered that the car was gone. Someone had broken into the home during the night and taken the car keys from a kitchen "junk drawer."

On September 18, 2012, police officers located the vehicle near the apartment complex where Stone resided.¹ Believing that Stone would try to use the vehicle in another burglary, the officers attached a tracking device to the vehicle. During the early morning hours of September 19, 2012, the officers followed Stone as he drove the stolen vehicle to several Howard County locations. Although they had not yet identified Stone as the driver, the officers observed that the vehicle's driver was between five-foot-nine and six-feet tall, weighed 170 to 200 pounds, and walked with a distinctive gait, "mov[ing] his shoulders from side to side," and swinging his arms, with his head down, "staring at the ground."

Around 4:00 a.m., the officers watched as Stone stopped near the home of Mr. Bhavin Patel. The police saw "a quick flash of light" in the house and then saw Stone exit the home through the garage and walk toward the police. However, when Stone saw the police, he ran behind the house, abandoned the vehicle, and eluded capture. The police confirmed that money was missing from a purse in Mr. Patel's kitchen. The police then processed the vehicle for evidence and found that DNA collected from the steering wheel matched Stone's DNA.

The State charged Stone with: (1) first degree burglary for breaking and entering into Ms. Alemzadeh's home; (2) third degree burglary for breaking and entering into Ms. Alemzadeh's home; (3) unlawful taking of a motor vehicle for taking Ms. Alemzadeh's vehicle; (4) unauthorized removal of property for taking Ms. Alemzadeh's vehicle; (5) theftvalued at less than $1,000.00 for taking the key to Ms. Alemzadeh's vehicle; (6) first-degree burglary for breaking and entering into Mr. Patel's home; (7) third-degree burglary for breaking and entering into Mr. Patel's home; and (8) theft valued at less than $1,000.00 for taking the money from Mr. Patel's home. On March 20, 2013, Stone appeared without counsel before the circuit court for arraignment.² In accordance with the requirements of Md. Rule 4-215, the court provided Stone with the necessary advisements for unrepresented defendants.³ Following the arraignment, Stone's trial was set for July 29, 2013.

On July 9, 2013, Attorney Stephen R. Tully entered his appearance on Stone's behalf and requested a postponement, which was granted. Stone's trial date was postponed to October 21, 2013, and then again, by joint motion of the parties, to November 27, 2013. On November 26, 2013, the court granted Attorney Tully's petition to withdraw his appearance. Stone's trial was rescheduled for March 17, 2014, but was administratively postponed due to bad weather until March 19, 2014. On March 19, 2014, Attorney Janette DeBoissiere of the Public Defender's Office entered her appearance on Stone's behalf and Stone's trial was postponed to May 13, 2014.

On May 7, 2014, five days before he was set to go to trial, Stone filed a pro se Petition to Withdraw Appearance of Attorney, requesting that the court strike Ms. DeBoissiere's appearance for the following reasons:

1. I have only see her 1 time in almost 2 months.

2. We did not discuss a strategy

3. She has not gotten all the discovery from the State 4. To [sic] many other reasons to list

At a motions hearing on May 8, 2014, the circuit court and Stone had the following exchange:

THE COURT: Could you tell me why you want Ms. DeBoissiere to not represent you?

THE DEFENDANT: Because I've only seen her one time and we have [sic] spoken or anything about our strategy about the case, which is coming up -

THE COURT: Next week.

THE DEFENDANT: -- next week. Yeah, and --

THE COURT: Has Ms. DeBoissiere represented you in the past?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, years ago.

THE COURT: Okay. So you're familiar with Ms. DeBoissiere. The Public Defender's Office has represented [sic] in a myriad of cases before me and the other judges, right?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, she has. It's, like, 12 years.

THE COURT: Okay. And you know that she's been an attorney, public defender criminal defense attorney for -- 20 years?

MS. DEBOISSIERE: Over 20, yes.

THE COURT: Over 20 years. Has appeared before this judge a thousand times.

MS. DEBOISSIERE: Probably.

THE COURT: Maybe more. A thousand before the other judges. You know her to be an experienced attorney?

THE DEFENDANT: I don't know. I took a plea the last time.

THE COURT: In part because of her advice although it had to have been your decision, of course.

THE DEFENDANT: My decision.

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. It's not unnoticed by this judge that you have a habit and a history of delay of cases. That you come in at the eleventh hour and you don't want this attorney and you don't want that attorney. Yeah, well --

THE DEFENDANT: This is the only time that ever happened.

THE COURT: Not so much.

THE DEFENDANT: This is the only time that ever happened.

MS. DEBOISSIERE: He has other problems, Your Honor. If I may add to his request?

THE COURT: I know he's had some medical issues, too, in the past.

MS. DEBOISSIERE: Well, he had a medical emergency on one occasion. He had private counsel whom he had retained at the time that he had two cases, but he had four burglaries total in those two cases.

THE COURT: I know.

MS. DEBOISSIERE: Then there was a motion to sever[] --

THE COURT: I know.

MS. DEBOISSIERE: -- the lawyer who had been hired for one trial. Was allowed to only represent him for one trial. That left two others from that case outstanding. And actually it's five burglaries, I think. And two others in the other case still outstanding. So he then hired the lawyer one at a time and ran out of money I think essentially. So --⁴

THE COURT: Well, I'll tell you, Ms. DeBoissiere, to be quite candid in earshot obviously of your client. If you were an inexperienced attorney, if I didn't know your capability, I might have a skosh of sympathy for the petition. I don't even have an eyelash of sympathy for the petition. I don'tthink it's valid. I think it's ridiculous. You're an experienced, competent attorney. The only thing Mr. Stone says, he hasn't seen you a lot.

THE DEFENDANT: That's not -- that's the only thing I --

MS. DEBOISSIERE: May I ask of the clerk? I seen [sic] him I think --

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. DEBOISSIERE: I think it's a total of four times counting the times he's been in this building.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I' ve been in here for other reasons.

MS. DEBOISSIERE: But I've been at the jail twice to talk to him, Your Honor, so far.

THE COURT: Are there any other reasons, Mr. Stone?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, I was out on bond on another charge, and I posted bond. So I still should be out on bond on another charge. I posted bail in another charge and Howard County Detention Center released me to Baltimore City where I had another misdemeanor detainer. And they released me. Said I go on my way.

Then Howard County called back and said, they shouldn't release me because I had a no-bond, no charge. These people had called and said I had no bond on a charge that I was already out on bail on. And instead of her filing the motion for habeas corpus, she filed a bond reduction to try to get my no bond reduced to something when it shouldn't even be -- that shouldn't even be what should have been filed.

THE COURT: I would have, too. That's the correct thing to have filed. Anything else?

THE DEFENDANT: No, no. Well, it was supposed to been [sic] I'm not supposed -- my bond was never revoked is what I'm saying.

THE COURT: Anything else?

THE DEFENDANT: It's an error in the Clerk's Office.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?

THE DEFENDANT: No, she just haven't [sic] told me anything about what we're going to do.

THE COURT: Let me ask Ms. DeBoissiere on the record. Do you feel competent to represent Mr. Stone in his case?

MS. DEBOISSIERE: I feel competent to represent him. Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else you want

...