Webb v. State
| Decision Date | 12 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2711, September Term, 2007.,2711, September Term, 2007. |
| Citation | 971 A.2d 949,185 Md. App. 580 |
| Parties | Deron Maurice WEBB v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Emily L. Levenson (Renee M. Hutchins, Nancy Forster, Public Defender on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant.
Brenda Gruss (Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Panel: DAVIS, HOLLANDER, JAMES A. KENNEY, III (retired, specially assigned), JJ.
Following a trial on October 24 and 25, 2007, Deron Maurice Webb, appellant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County of three counts of felony theft and numerous related offenses. Pursuant to each of the three theft convictions, the trial court imposed a ten-year prison sentence, each to run consecutively for an aggregate of thirty years. Appellant was further sentenced to an additional two years of imprisonment for his other convictions.1
From these convictions and sentences, appellant filed the instant appeal, presenting two questions2 for our review, which we have rephrased as follows:
1. Does application of the single larceny doctrine dictate that appellant's actions constituted a single criminal act?
2. Did the trial court's instructions to the jury adequately cover legal issues properly generated by the evidence?
For the reasons that follow, we answer appellant's first question in the affirmative and we conclude that appellant's second question was not properly preserved. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On December 7, 2007, two motorcycles and a van were reported stolen from the area around Glen Burnie, Maryland. Howard County police were not provided with information as to the identity of the perpetrators; however, they were able to locate one of the motorcycles by its LoJack3 signal near Port Capital Drive in Howard County. The investigating officers determined that the signal emanated from a van parked in the driveway of a townhouse at 7235 Old Friendship Way. After several hours of covert surveillance of the van, appellant was seen exiting the townhouse and entering the van. The officers followed the van once it turned onto the main road. Shortly thereafter, the van collided with two parked cars, after which appellant jumped out of the van and escaped on foot. The police pursued appellant and apprehended him two to three minutes later. The stolen motorcycles were found inside the van, which was also later determined to have been stolen.
A jury trial was held on October 24 and 25, 2007. Prior to jury deliberations, the trial judge charged the jury as follows during the course of his instructions:
Once again, these written instructions are going back. You can review them individually or collectively to determine what, if any, significance you give to these instructions and what, if any differences you see.
Appellant's counsel interposed no objection, nor did he take exceptions to the instruction. At the conclusion of jury deliberations, appellant was convicted of three counts of possession of stolen property —two counts of misdemeanor fleeing and eluding, and one count each of reckless driving, "failing to stop after an unattended vehicle and property damage accident" and driving while privilege was suspended. Appellant was acquitted, inter alia, of the counts of theft of motor vehicle. On January 11, 2008, appellant was sentenced to thirty-two years to the Division of Correction. This timely appeal followed. Additional facts will be provided infra as warranted.
Appellant contends that application of the single larceny doctrine dictates that his actions constituted a single criminal act. Appellant was convicted and sentenced for three separate counts of possession of stolen property4 subsequent to the thefts of the two motorcycles and the van. According to appellant, however, the State failed to meet its burden of proving that these thefts were not part of a single larcenous scheme or course of conduct and, therefore, appellant's thefts should have been deemed as one criminal act under the "single larceny doctrine." Instead, appellant was sentenced to consecutive ten-year sentences for each of the three counts of possession of stolen property.
The Court of Appeals first recognized the "single larceny doctrine" in State v. Warren, 77 Md. 121, 26 A. 500 (1893), and more recently reexamined the doctrine in State v. White, 348 Md. 179, 702 A.2d 1263 (1997) and Kelley v. State, 402 Md. 745, 756, 939 A.2d 149 (2008). The doctrine evolved as a common law principle which typically arises in three contexts:
(1) whether a count in a charging document alleging that the defendant stole the property of several persons at the same time charges more than one offense and is therefore duplicitous; (2) whether a prosecution, conviction, or sentencing for stealing the property of one person bars, under double jeopardy principles, the prosecution, conviction, or sentencing for having stolen the property of another person at the same time; and (3) whether, when the property of different persons is stolen at the same time, the values of the separate items of property may be aggregated to raise the grade of the offense or the severity of the punishment, to the extent that either is dependent on the value of the property taken.
White, 348 Md. at 182, 702 A.2d 1263.
In Warren, the Court of Appeals, faced with the first of these fact patterns, answered the question: "Does the stealing of several articles of property at the same time, belonging to several owners, constitute one offense, or as many separate offenses as these different owners of the property stolen?" Warren, 77 Md. at 122, 26 A. 500. Although the Court, in its analysis, did not state that its decision was based on the single larceny doctrine, it applied the principle, expositing that "the stealing of several articles at the same time, whether belonging to the same person, or to several persons, constituted but one offense." Id. (Emphasis added). The Warren Court then articulated its rationale, id.:
It is but one offense, because the act is one continuous act—the same transaction; and the gist of the offense being the felonious taking of the property, we do not see how the legal quality of the act is in any manner affected by the fact that the property stolen, instead of belonging to one person is the several property of different persons.
The Court cautioned, however, that "the stealing of property at different times, whether belonging to the same person or different persons, constituted separate offenses. ..." Id. at 123, 26 A. 500. (Emphasis added); see Kelley, 402 Md. at 750, 939 A.2d 149. Subsequent to State v. Warren, however, the Court of Appeals had determined that a single charge against a defendant could encompass property stolen at different times. Delcher v. State, 161 Md. 475, 483, 158 A. 37 (1932) (); Horsey v. State, 225 Md. 80, 83, 169 A.2d 457 (1961) ().
Most recently, in Kelley, 402 Md. at 758, 939 A.2d 149, the Court of Appeals reasoned that
a single scheme conceivably may be found where multiple takings from different owners at different locations are in quick and unbroken succession and from a limited area ... [;however, w]here there is a more significant time lapse between the takings ... or they occur from locations that are not in very close proximity, the general rule that the takings are not part of a single scheme or continuing course of conduct should be applied....
This determination "is a factual matter that must be based on the evidence." Id. at 756, 939 A.2d 149. The Court of Appeals explained that the burden of proving whether the takings were separate or part of a single scheme rested with the State: "The question, then, is whether the State has sufficiently established beyond a reasonable doubt that there was, or ... was not, a single larcenous scheme or course of conduct." Id.
The legislature created the theft statute to consolidate, in a single statutory scheme, the various common law larceny related crimes. State v. Burroughs, 333 Md. 614, 636 A.2d 1009 (1994). Acquah v. State, 113 Md.App. 29, 48, 686 A.2d 690 (1996). Prior to the enactment of the consolidated theft statute, larceny, receiving stolen goods and related theft offenses were delineated under separate criminal statutes. Maryland's Theft Statute provides several theories, requiring the State to prove different elements under which an accused can be charged. See Md.Code Ann. (2002, 2008 Supp.), Criminal Law (C.L.), §§ 7-104, 7-105.5 Section 7-104(c), entitled "Possessing personal property," provides:
(1) A person may not possess stolen personal property knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen, if the person:
(i) intends to deprive the owner of the property;
(ii) willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in a manner that deprives the owner of the property; or
(iii) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing that the use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property.
Appellant postulates that, unlike other versions of theft which require the accused to have actually taken the property as part of the theft, § 7-104(c) requires mere possession of stolen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ray v. State
...simply needs to be “raised in or decided by the trial court,” regardless of which party raises the issue. See Webb v. State, 185 Md.App. 580, 595, 589, 971 A.2d 949 (2009) (This Court considered an issue to be preserved, even though the State, not the defendant, raised the issue in the tria......
-
Montgomery v. State
...however, may challenge her convictions on multiplicity grounds.Id. (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). In Webb v. State, 185 Md.App. 580, 590, 598, 971 A.2d 949 (2009), this Court, despite the defendant's failure to object below, “exercise[d] our plenary discretion to review the pro......
- Burlas v. State
- In re Allen