Vernon v. State
| Decision Date | 03 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 175,No. 92,92,175 |
| Parties | JEROME LAMONT VERNON v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
UNREPORTED
CONSOLIDATED CASES
Graeff, Leahy, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, J.
*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.
On November 21, 2014, a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County found Jerome Lamont Vernon, appellant, guilty of one count of armed robbery, one count of use of a handgun in a crime of violence, and possession of a handgun by a person convicted of a crime of violence. The circuit court sentenced appellant to ten years of incarceration for the armed robbery conviction and five years, concurrent, on the other two counts.
Appellant presents several questions for this Court's review, which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
The State and the defense presented two very different versions of the events that took place at the Extended Stay Hotel in Rockville, Maryland, on the night of October 29, 2013. The State presented testimony from Erik Howard, Peter Brown, and Jennifer Tedder, who all testified that they spent the evening with their children carving pumpkins in Mr. Howard's room at the Extended Stay. After dropping the children off at theirrespective homes, Mr. Howard, Mr. Brown, and Ms. Tedder returned to the hotel to clean up the mess from the pumpkin carving and watch a movie. Shortly thereafter, Michelle Wilson came to the hotel with another female, who was not known to any of the three in the hotel room. The friend asked to use the bathroom, and after she was finished, Ms. Wilson stated that they were going to retrieve something they had left in the car. Mr. Howard gave Ms. Wilson his keycard so she could get back into the hotel room.1
After approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Wilson and her friend had not returned. Concerned that they were unable to get back into the building, Mr. Howard decided to go look for them. Just as Mr. Howard was exiting the hotel room, appellant and another male "kind of pushed their way into the door." Mr. Howard, Mr. Brown, and Ms. Tedder all testified that appellant was carrying a revolver, and the other man was carrying a shotgun. Appellant started brandishing the revolver, demanding money, and yelling that they "know what this is" and to "kick it out." Appellant pressed the revolver into Mr. Brown's face. Appellant became angry because Mr. Howard and Mr. Brown "didn't have what they wanted." Mr. Howard began to "tussle" with appellant, but after the other man threatened Ms. Tedder with the shotgun, Mr. Howard "backed down." Appellant then "pistol whipped" Mr. Howard, striking him in the back of the head with the revolver.
Appellant and his accomplice took from Mr. Howard $300-400, his cell phone, his neon green and black Nike Air Jordan shoes, and a coin collection. They took fromMr. Brown approximately $100, his keys, his phone, and his black and white Converse shoes, and they took $700 of rent money from Ms. Tedder. When appellant tried to take Ms. Tedder's cell phone and keys, she pleaded with him to leave the phone so she could get in contact with her children. Appellant then wiped off the cell phone and threw it into the refrigerator. When appellant and his accomplice left, the three chased after them and observed two vehicles driving away, Ms. Wilson's sedan and a gold Maxima.
Appellant presented a different version of what occurred inside the Extended Stay hotel room. He denied ever having a gun or robbing anyone that night. He testified that he and Ms. Wilson drove to the Extended Stay Hotel, with a man known as "Big Brother" and another unidentified female. Appellant did not know they were going there. When they arrived, Ms. Wilson and the other female went inside the hotel, and appellant stayed outside and smoked a cigarette. When Ms. Wilson and the other female came out of the hotel, Ms. Wilson was rambling, saying things like "that bitch [Ms. Tedder] is messing things up for me."2 Ms. Wilson asked appellant to "do a deal for her," i.e., trade a shotgun as "collateral for some pills until her mom got paid on the 1st." Appellant initially refused, but he eventually relented, agreeing to make the exchange, provided that he was not the person carrying the shotgun into the hotel.
Ms. Wilson then used a keycard to open the hotel door for appellant and Big Brother. Appellant testified that Big Brother, who carried the shotgun, was wearing a scarf over thebottom part of his face, below his nose. When the two entered the hallway, appellant noticed a man walking toward them. Appellant did not know the man at the time, but at trial, he identified that man as Mr. Howard. Mr. Howard asked about Ms. Wilson, stated "come on, let's go," and then opened his hotel room door. They went inside, and Mr. Howard pulled out a little bag of pills. Appellant did not think that was what Ms. Wilson wanted, and he told Mr. Howard that Ms. Wilson Appellant then stated:
At that point, "[e]verybody started talking and they wanted to . . . call [Ms. Wilson]." Appellant grabbed Ms. Tedder's cell phone, which was on the table next to him. When Big Brother refused to call Ms. Wilson, appellant threw the phone in the refrigerator, "just trying to be an ass." Appellant moved toward the door, but Mr. Howard "jumped in between [appellant] and the door." After a "tense face-off," appellant and Big Brother left the hotel room. Mr. Howard followed them, cursing and claiming that he would "get" them.
Appellant testified that he never held any gun, never touched anyone in the room, and did not steal anything from the hotel room or its three occupants. After the incident at the Extended Stay Hotel, appellant told Ms. Wilson to drive him home. When they arrived, everyone went inside appellant's home.
After appellant left the hotel, Ms. Tedder called 911 and stated that appellant and an unidentified male had robbed her, Mr. Howard, and Mr. Brown. A couple of days afterthe incident, the police stopped appellant as he was driving Ms. Wilson's car to the store, and they arrested him.3 The police subsequently executed a search warrant on appellant's home. They recovered a loaded shotgun and black Converse sneakers.
Appellant testified that the shotgun the police found in his home must have been brought into the house by Ms. Wilson or Big Brother. With respect to the shoes, appellant stated that a lot of people visit his house, and someone must have left them there.
On November 6, 2013, the police executed a search warrant on Ms. Wilson's vehicle. Officers recovered a black Verizon Samsung Galaxy cell phone with a cracked screen, which Mr. Brown later identified as Mr. Howard's phone.
Sergeant Mark McCoy testified that he interviewed appellant after the incident. Appellant stated that he went to the hotel to confront "Eric," a "pretty bad guy" who was "a pill popper." Ms. Wilson gave him a revolver and another man a shotgun. They went in the hotel room, demanded cash, and took $300-$400. Appellant said that he did not expect to get in trouble because Eric was "not a good guy," and he did not think anyone would call the police.
The State introduced a three-part DVD containing a video recording of appellant's interview with Sergeant McCoy. In the first recorded part of the interview ("Part I"), appellant generally denied involvement in the robbery. In the third recorded part of the interview ("Part III"), however, appellant admitted going into the hotel room with a gun. Appellant later stated that he made a "very wrong decision, and [it was] bothering [him] so much."
Additional facts will be discussed as necessary in the discussion that follows.
Appellant's first contention is that the circuit court erred, for two reasons, in admitting into evidence his statement to police. First, he asserts that the statement was "a false, involuntary confession" obtained from appellant "by promising him an improper benefit," i.e., Sergeant McCoy's statements that appellant could "mitigate what happened" and if he talked, he could go home. Second, he contends that the police vitiated his Miranda4 rights in obtaining the statement after making a promise of confidentiality.
The State argues that the circuit court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress the statement he gave to the police. It disagrees with appellant's claim that the statement was induced by an improper promise, asserting that the police officer's statement that appellant could "mitigate what happened" was not an improper inducement that causedappellant's statement to be involuntary. With respect to the claim that the police told appellant that if he talked, he could go home, the State asserts that Sergeant McCoy denied making any improper...
To continue reading
Request your trial