White v. State
Decision Date | 26 May 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 1232, Sept. Term, 2019,1232, Sept. Term, 2019 |
Citation | 252 A.3d 37,250 Md.App. 604 |
Parties | Sheldon Duke WHITE v. STATE of Maryland |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: Jake Elijah Struebing (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, Washington, D.C., Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on the brief, for Appellant.
Argued by: Peter R. Naugle (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD), on the brief, for Appellee.
Panel: Fader, C.J., Graeff, Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
On September 18, 2018, a grand jury in the Circuit Court for Frederick County returned a 25-count indictment against Sheldon Duke White, appellant, for various CDS and firearm offenses. In January 2019, after forensic testing revealed the presence of fentanyl in the seized contraband, the grand jury returned a second indictment against appellant, charging identical counts for the same events, plus an additional four counts related to the fentanyl. The State then entered a nolle prosequi ("nol pros ") of the charges in the first indictment.1
On June 4, 2019, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges, pursuant to an agreed statement of facts, and the court convicted him of possession with intent to distribute heroin (count 12), possession with intent to distribute heroin with a detectable amount of fentanyl (count 16), and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (count 25). The court sentenced appellant to 20 years’ imprisonment on count 25, the first five years without parole, 20 years’ imprisonment on count 12, to be served consecutively, but all suspended, and 10 years’ imprisonment on count 16, to be served consecutively, but all suspended.
On appeal, 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.
On June 4, 2019, appellant pleaded not guilty to three drug trafficking and firearms charges based on an agreed statement of facts, preserving his right to appeal.2 The prosecutor began by explaining the posture of the case:
Appellant did not object to these statements, and defense counsel subsequently affirmed that the defense would not contest the statement of facts.
The prosecutor stated that, if the court found appellant guilty of the three charges, there was a joint recommendation regarding sentencing, which included 20 years on count 25, possession of a firearm with a nexus to drug trafficking, and five years of probation. The prosecutor continued:
After defense counsel and the court questioned appellant to make sure he understood the rights he was waiving by proceeding with an agreed statement of facts, the State set forth the agreed statement of facts as follows:
.
Detective Grigsby would have testified that the street, that gelcaps of heroin sell for approximately 20 to $40 in Frederick.
Detective Grigsby also would have testified that the evidence in the bag in the nightstand is an indication of possession with the intent to distribute, because of the large amount, the packaging materials and the -- Court's indulgence -- the amount of the caps, and the packaging material, and the location.
Directly next to the nightstand was a pair of blue jean shorts on the floor, and inside those shorts was [appellant's] Pennsylvania driver's license. Inside [appellant's] pants pocket was $1365 in U.S. currency, along with $10 that was sitting on the nightstand, so a total of $1375 was seized.
Directly next to the pants with [appellant's] driver's license and the large amount of CDS located on the nightstand, there was a black Pietro Beretta [9mm] handgun located under the mattress of the bed. The handgun was loaded and had 13 live rounds in the magazine. There was an extra magazine with 13 live rounds along with 50 loose live 9mm rounds in a black bag next to the handgun.
The State then explained the photographs the State would have introduced, including: (1) photographs showing that this was a small hotel suite with three rooms; (2) photographs depicting where the mattress was lifted and the gun was located; and (3) a photograph showing the nightstand with the drawer open with a plastic bag in the bottom of the drawer.
The State asked the court to take judicial notice of the testimony of the three officers at the suppression hearing, stating that "they would testify that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and right to counsel, and no threats, promises, coercion, or inducements were used to elicit his statements."
The prosecutor continued:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Potter v. Potter
......Therefore—and again, we are reading between the lines of its decision—the court reasoned that the State's statutory requirements for the execution of wills and the administration of a decedent's property do not apply to James's membership interest in ......
-
Sykes v. State
...prejudice to the defendant. Md. Rule 5-403. However, "[e]vidence is never excluded merely because it is prejudicial." White v. State , 250 Md.App. 604, 252 A.3d 37 (2021) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Moore v. State , 84 Md. App. 165, 172, 578 A.2d 304 (1990) ). Nor is the evidence......
-
In re Abhishek I.
...legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written without resort to other rules of construction." White v. State , 250 Md. App. 604, 638, 252 A.3d 37 (quoting Bey , 452 Md. at 266, 156 A.3d 873 ), cert. denied , 475 Md. 717, 257 A.3d 1170 (2021). If the language of the ......
-
Dennis v. State
...address each separately was explored by Judge Kathryn Graeff in White v. State, 250 Md.App. 604 (2021), cert. denied, 475 Md. 717 (2021). In White, White argued that sentence for violating Section 5-608.1 of the Criminal Law Article should have merged with his sentence under Section 5-602 o......