Wilson v. State
Decision Date | 24 December 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 1649,1649 |
Citation | 148 Md. App. 601,814 A.2d 1 |
Parties | Ismail M. WILSON, Travon McCoy and Robert Bryant v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Michael R. Braudes, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on the brief for appellant, Wilson), Baltimore. Brian J. Murphy, Assigned Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on the brief, for appellant, McCoy), Baltimore. Anne K. Olesen (Jennifer P. Lyman, on brief, for appellant, Bryant), Washington, DC.
Shannon E. Avery, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Atty. Gen., and Patricia Jessamy, State's Atty., for Baltimore City, on the brief), Baltimore.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and DAVIS, and PAUL E. ALPERT (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
The genesis of this appeal was the senseless quintuple murders and the criminal proceedings leading to the arrest and conviction of appellants. Appellants Ismail1 Malik Wilson, Travon McCoy, and Robert Lamont Bryant were jointly charged by indictment dated December 5, 1999 for (1) first degree premeditated murder of five victims—Levanna Lynette Spearman, Makisha Jenkins, Mary Helen Collein, Trennell Alston, and Mary McNeil Matthews, (2) use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, (3) wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun, (4) openly wearing or carrying a dangerous and deadly weapon, and (5) wearing or carrying a concealed dangerous and deadly weapon as to each victim. They were separately indicted for conspiring to murder the above-named victims.2
In two nine-count indictments, appellants were charged with (1) robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, (2) robbery, (3) first degree assault, (4) second degree assault, (5) stealing property belonging to the complainant, (6) wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun, (7) use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, (8) openly wearing or carrying a dangerous and deadly weapon, and (9) wearing or carrying a concealed dangerous and deadly weapon as to two of the victims—Alvin Eugene Thomas and Mary McNeil Matthews. They were charged in separate indictments for conspiring to rob Thomas and Matthews with a dangerous and deadly weapon. As to Thomas, they were additionally charged with conspiring to kidnap and, in a six-count indictment, they were further charged with two counts of kidnapping, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun, openly wearing or carrying a dangerous and deadly weapon, and wearing or carrying a concealed dangerous and deadly weapon.
Wilson filed pre-trial motions on February 2, 2000 demanding, inter alia, a speedy trial and a request for discovery and production of documents. On March 17, 2000, Wilson filed a motion to compel discovery. Bryant filed similar motions on April 7, 2000. Motions for demand for a speedy trial and appropriate relief were filed by Wilson on June 23, 2000 and again on August 15, 2000. Wilson filed motions to compel discovery, pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-263(g), on February 26, 2001, one of which requested the State to produce physical evidence related to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. McCoy filed a motion in demand of a speedy trial on May 31, 2001. The State filed a motion for appropriate relief concerning the Fifth Amendment rights of witness Ronald Lee McNeil on June 5, 2001. On June 11, 2001, each appellant renewed his exceptions to previous rulings denying the motions to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. In addition, Wilson filed a motion pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-253(c) to sever in order to be heard in a separate trial. Various other motions and responses thereto were filed before trial began. Relevant pre-trial motions will be discussed, infra.
All of the pre-trial motions were heard on January 23-25, 2001 and June 11, 2001 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The trial before a jury commenced in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on June 12, 2001 and, on June 29, 2001, the jury convicted all three appellants and they were sentenced on September 24, 2001.
Both Bryant and McCoy were found guilty of five counts each of use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, conspiracy to commit murder, first degree murder and felony murder of Spearman, Jenkins, Collein, Alston, and Matthews. Bryant and McCoy were found not guilty of carrying a dangerous and deadly weapon with the intent to injure. Wilson was found guilty of five counts of first degree felony murder, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, and conspiring to murder. He was neither found guilty of carrying a dangerous and deadly weapon with the intent to injure nor first degree murder of the five victims. Wilson, Bryant, and McCoy were found guilty of two counts each of robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, use of a handgun in commission of a felony, and conspiracy to rob with a deadly weapon, and one count each of conspiring to kidnap and kidnapping.
Wilson was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences, without the possibility of parole, for the counts of felony murder. The trial judge merged the felony murder convictions with the convictions for use of a handgun in commission of a felony. For the five counts of conspiracy to murder, Wilson was sentenced to one term of life imprisonment (with the possibility of parole) consecutive to the other sentences. The trial judge merged all of Wilson's conspiracy to murder convictions into one.
Wilson was sentenced to twenty years, consecutive to the other sentences, for robbery with a deadly weapon of Thomas. Wilson was sentenced to an additional twenty years, the first five years to be served without the possibility of parole, for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. Wilson was sentenced to another twenty-year consecutive sentence for conspiring to rob Thomas, thirty years consecutive for kidnapping Thomas, and thirty years consecutive for conspiracy to kidnap Thomas. For the additional crimes against Matthews, the trial judge merged the convictions for conspiring to rob, robbery with a deadly weapon, and the use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence with the convictions for felony murder.
Bryant and McCoy were sentenced to five consecutive life sentences, without the possibility of parole, for the five counts of first degree murder. The judge merged the felony murder convictions with the first degree murder convictions. The lower court sentenced them to twenty years' imprisonment for the charge of using a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, five of which were without the possibility of parole, to be served consecutive to the other sentences. Bryant and McCoy were sentenced to life, which merged with the other four counts of conspiracy to murder, for one of the five counts of conspiracy to murder.
With respect to the indictment charging crimes against Thomas, they were sentenced to twenty years for robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, twenty years—five without the possibility of parole—for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, thirty years for kidnapping, and thirty years for conspiring to kidnap, which the judge merged with the conspiracy to rob conviction.
They were sentenced to twenty years for robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon of Matthews and twenty years for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence. The conspiracy to rob with a dangerous and deadly weapon was merged with the conspiracy to murder convictions.
In his timely appeal, filed September 25, 2001, appellant Wilson raises seven questions for our review, some of which we have rephrased as follows:
I. Did the trial court err in denying appellant his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial? II. Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss on the basis that appellant was denied his rights to a speedy trial?
III. Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion for severance?
IV. Did the trial court err in excluding evidence which implicated an alternative suspect?
V. Did the trial court err by not propounding appellant's requested voir dire questions?
VI. Did the trial court err in allowing the State to argue in its closing argument that appellant failed to call witnesses in his defense?
VII. Is appellant entitled to reversal of all but one conviction and sentence for conspiracy?
Appellant McCoy filed his notice of appeal on September 26, 2001. Therein, he raises six questions for our review, some of which have been rephrased as follows:
I. Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss on the basis that appellant was denied his rights to a speedy trial?
II. Did the trial court err by imposing more than one sentence for conspiracy?
III. Did the trial court err in allowing the State to argue in its closing argument that appellant failed to call witnesses in his defense?
IV. Did the trial court err in excluding evidence which implicated an alternative suspect?
V. Did the trial court err in admitting letters written by a non-testifying party?
VI. Did the trial court err in denying appellant his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial?
On October 3, 2001, appellant Bryant filed his notice of appeal, and he has raised eight questions for our review, some of which we have rephrased as follows:
I. Did the trial court err by implicitly endorsing the testimony of a witness for the State?
II. Did the trial court err in declining to give the jury instructions requested by appellant?
III. Did the trial court err in excluding evidence which implicated an alternative suspect?
IV. Did the trial court err in denying appellant his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial?
V. Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss on the basis that appellant was denied his rights to a speedy trial?
VI. Did...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dansbury v. State Of Md..
...v. State, 66 Md.App. 603, 620, 505 A.2d 564, cert. denied, 306 Md. 371, 509 A.2d 134 (1986). See MPJI-Cr 3:29. In Wilson v. State, 148 Md.App. 601, 654 n. 22, 814 A.2d 1 (2002), cert. denied, 374 Md. 84, 821 A.2d 371 (2003), we said: “The ‘missing witness rule,’ ‘even in criminal cases is t......
-
Bernadyn v. State
...accept legal instructions. Such questions are not mandated as they do not address the juror's state of mind. See Wilson v. State, 148 Md.App. 601, 658, 814 A.2d 1 (2002), cert. denied, 374 Md. 84, 821 A.2d 371 (2003)(noting that during voir dire, "it is inappropriate to instruct on the law ......
-
Baker v. State
...not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have declined to ask it. Id. at 577, 505 A.2d 545. Similarly, in Wilson v. State, 148 Md.App. 601, 656-57, 814 A.2d 1 (2002), cert. denied, 374 Md. 82, 821 A.2d 370 (2003), this Court rejected Wilson's and Bryant's contentions that the trial......
-
Drake and Charles v. State
...biases of potential jurors. As to the allegedly instructional purpose of the CSI question, the appellants rely upon Wilson v. State, 148 Md.App. 601, 814 A.2d 1 (2002), to support their argument. In Wilson, several defendants proposed voir dire questions that the trial judge declined to ask......
-
Merger Doctrine and the Rule of Lenity
...it has as its purpose the commission of several offenses." See also Somers v. State, 156 Md. App. 279, 317 (2004); Wilson v. State, 148 Md. App. 601, 640-41 (2002); Simpson v. State, 121 Md. App. 263, 291 (1998); Allen v. State, 89 Md. App. 25, 53-54 (1991); Vandegrift v. State, 82 Md. App.......
-
Barker V. Wingo Four-Pronged Test
...of the objections as opposed to attaching significant weight to a purely pro forma objection. 407 U.S. at 528-29; see Wilson v. State, 148 Md. App. 601, 637 (2002); Vaise v. State, 246 Md. App. 188 (2020) (failure to assert speedy trial demand at critical points weighs against finding of sp......
-
Incarceration
...State, 325 Md. 488, 508 n.11 (1992); Henry v. State, 324 Md. 204, 240 (1991); Jordan v. State, 323 Md. 151, 162 (1991); Wilson v. State, 148 Md. App. 601, 640-41 (2002). H. Sentence for first degree murder—life with or without parole Maryland, by statute, has abrogated the death penalty. Se......