Wiley v. United States
| Decision Date | 23 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-CM-323,19-CM-323 |
| Parties | Roman L. WILEY, a/k/a Kamaal Mumin, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Omar Bississo was on the brief for appellant.
Jessie K. Liu, United States Attorney at the time the motion was filed, and Andrea Antonelli, Elizabeth Trosman, and Chrisellen R. Kolb, Assistant United States Attorneys, filed a motion for summary affirmance for appellee.
Before McLeese and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Ruiz, Senior Judge.
Opinion by Associate Judge McLeese, concurring in part and dissenting in part, at page 1215.
Roman Wiley entered a house that was not his. There is no dispute Wiley sincerely believed the house belonged to him, but the evidence was conclusively to the contrary. He had entered the same house without permission many times before, only this time he also changed the locks on a wrought-iron gate securing its back door. He was convicted of unlawful entry and malicious destruction of property, namely, the locks he removed from the gate. Wiley now appeals his convictions and argues there was insufficient evidence to support them.
As to the unlawful entry count, Wiley argues his genuine belief that he owned the house negates the requisite intent for that offense. Because there was ample evidence to conclude his belief was unreasonable, however, we disagree and affirm his unlawful entry conviction. As to the malicious destruction of property count, Wiley argues the evidence did not show that he damaged the locks, but instead merely that he removed them by unfastening the two screws that kept the locks affixed to the gate's housing. To the extent he damaged the locks beyond merely removing them, Wiley argues the evidence does not support a finding that he did so with the "malice" required by D.C. Code § 22-303 (2012 Repl.). We agree with him that the evidence of malice was insufficient and therefore reverse his conviction for malicious destruction of property.
In February 2018, Dinesh Tandon purchased a residential property located at 4891 Colorado Avenue, N.W. The property had once been the site of the Embassy of Congo, though it had been vacant for some time, and Tandon replaced all the locks and hired contractors to repair the house. Tandon was not living there during the repairs but visited frequently to monitor the contractors’ progress. One day about a month after he purchased it, Tandon saw somebody (whom he later identified as Wiley) exit the house's basement. Tandon did not confront him at the time and assumed he had been squatting there while the house was vacant. Months later, a contractor called Tandon and reported that he had seen the same man on the property again. Tandon went to the house, but Wiley was gone by the time he arrived. On another occasion, Tandon received a call from the electric company about someone manipulating the electricity meter in the house's basement, prompting Tandon to visit his house again. This time he found Wiley inside, so he called the police, but Wiley was gone before they arrived.
On October 9, 2018, Tandon discovered that someone had gained access to his property, only this time they had replaced the locks on some of the house's doors. On the wrought-iron gate securing the back door, the door-handle and lock had been removed, exposing the pre-fabricated holes where they had previously been. Tandon testified that the locks were "damaged" and "broken," though he and the prosecutor used those words interchangeably with the locks having been "changed" and "removed."1 He did not describe any damage to the locks beyond their removal; there was no mention of any dents, scratches, contortions, or difficulty in reassembling the locks for future operation. Tandon also testified the back door was boarded up from the inside and the ceiling in the house's entryway was damaged. He called the police to report the incident. Officer Perez arrived on the scene with one of his fellow officers and they took photographs depicting the back gate with the lock and handles removed, and the lock assembly scattered on the ground.
The next day, Wiley returned to the house and Tandon again called the police, prompting Officer Perez to return. The officer approached to find Wiley sitting on the house's front steps. Wiley did not try to leave or otherwise evade Officer Perez, but instead spoke freely and insisted he owned the house. Wiley said he was at the house the day prior, and he showed Officer Perez some (apparently immaterial) paperwork purporting to document his ownership of the house. He also explained he was now there to replace the front gate's locks because somebody else kept "coming in behind [him], breaking in and changing the locks," seemingly referring to the new locks Tandon had put on the house. Wiley showed Officer Perez a still-packaged lockset and indicated he was planning to change the front gate's locks with the screwdriver he had in his backpack, which he also showed to Officer Perez. After more discussion during which Wiley could not substantiate that he owned the house, Officer Perez arrested him.
Wiley was charged with one count of unlawful entry on private property, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3302(a)(1) (2012 Repl.), and one count of malicious destruction of property, "that is, door locks," in violation of D.C. Code § 22-303 (2012 Repl.). After Wiley was found competent to stand trial, the case proceeded to a bench trial before the Honorable J. Ramsey Johnson. Tandon and Officer Perez testified for the government, detailing the facts outlined above. The government also introduced Officer Perez's body-worn camera footage, capturing his conversation with Wiley, and two relevant photographic exhibits (which are appended to this opinion): one photograph of the back gate with its locks removed, and another of the gate's locks disassembled on the ground.
Wiley testified in his defense that he owned the house. He admitted to switching out the locks, explaining that he used a screwdriver to "unscrew the screws out" and then took "the cylinders out" and put "new cylinders and locks" in their place. Wiley also had this exchange with Judge Johnson:
He explained that he changed the locks for his own safety because he "didn't know" who had put new locks on the house "or how they kept coming in and out of the place." He otherwise denied damaging the property in any way.
Wiley acknowledged that he had previously been charged with unlawfully entering the same residence. See Information, United States v. Wiley , 2017 CMD 017365 (D.C. Sup. Ct. Oct. 10, 2017) ("Wiley I ").2 He testified that the trial court had imposed a stay-away order in that matter, but later lifted it, allowing him to "return back to that address." The dismissal and dissolution of the stay-away order apparently meant, to Wiley, that he "owned the shit." When asked if he had any records demonstrating his property ownership, he responded somewhat incoherently, but seemingly in the negative.
Closing arguments were brief. The government stressed that Wiley "had no good faith basis to believe that that property was his," and "admitted that he removed the locks." The defense countered by stressing Wiley's seemingly genuine belief that the house was his, and that "he didn't destroy" the locks, but "just took them off and placed his own locks on there." The government rebutted that
Judge Johnson found Wiley guilty on both counts. In a short oral ruling, he explained:
Both offenses are simple and straight forward offenses and somehow Mr. [Wiley] has the idea that this is his house, but it's not his house ... Mr. Dinesh Tandon made it very clear that it was his house. He's the one who bought it. He's the one who is fixing it up.
Judge Johnson added that he did not "really think [Wiley] lied" about owning the house, rather he "has a deeply held belief that it's his property," but is simply "wrong" about that. He sentenced Wiley to concurrent terms of 180 days of imprisonment, suspended as to all but 30 days, and 18 months of supervised probation. As a condition of probation, the court required him to submit to a mental health screening followed by treatment. Wiley then timely filed this appeal.
Wiley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to both his unlawful entry and his malicious destruction of property convictions. We review sufficiency challenges de novo. Nero v. United States , 73 A.3d 153, 157 (D.C. 2013). In doing so, we "review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving full play to the right of the fact-finder to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact." Roberts v. United States , 216 A.3d 870, 882 (D.C. 2019). "A court must deem the proof of guilt sufficient if, ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Rivas v. United States , 783 A.2d 125, 134 (D.C. 2001) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original)).
We first examine Wiley's challenge to his unlawful entry conviction. Under the statute, "[a]ny person who, without lawful authority," enters a private dwelling "against the will of the lawful occupant" commits an unlawful entry. D.C. Code § 22-3302(a)(1). The offense has five elements: (1) the defendant entered or attempted to enter a private dwelling, (2...
To continue reading
Request your trial