Wood v. State

• Decision Date: 21 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 1635,Sept. Term, 2011.,1635
• Citation: 209 Md.App. 246,58 A.3d 556
• Parties: Hubert Allen WOOD v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

209 Md.App. 246

58 A.3d 556

Hubert Allen WOOD

v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 1635, Sept. Term, 2011.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 21, 2012.

Jeffrey M. Ross (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.

Mary Ann Ince (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief) Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Panel: MATRICCIANI, WATTS and JAMES R. EYLER (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

WATTS, J.

Following a trial from June 13, 2011, through June 16, 2011, a jury in the Circuit Court for Cecil County convicted Hubert Allen Wood, appellant, of first-degree murder.¹See Md.Code Ann., Crim. Law Art. (“C.L.”) § 2–201 (first-degree murder). On August 24, 2011, the circuit court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment, with all but eighty years suspended.² Appellant noted an appeal raising five issues, which we quote:

I. Did the [circuit] court fail to comply with Maryland Rule 4–215(e)?

II. Did the [circuit] court err in failing to determine, on evidence presented on the record, whether [a]ppellant was competent to stand trial?

III. Did the [circuit] court err in failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of legally adequate provocation and voluntary intoxication?

IV. Is the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction for first[-]degree murder?

V. Did the [circuit] court err in excluding hearsay evidence that the victim identified persons other than [a]ppellant as those responsible for assaulting the victim shortly before he was killed?For the reasons set forth below, we answer each question in the negative. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of conviction. We remand the case to the circuit court, however, for the limited purpose of reimposition of the sentence followed by a period of probation in accordance with Criminal Procedure Article § 6–222.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2010, Deputy Jesse Alexander of the Cecil County Sheriff's Office responded to a call reporting a death at 1720 East Old Philadelphia Road in Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland. Upon entering the residence located at 1720 East Old Philadelphia Road, Deputy Alexander found Daniel Curran deceased. Dr. Zabiullah Ali, an assistant medical examiner,performed an autopsy on Curran, and reported finding stab wounds to Curran's head, neck, upper chest, hand, and leg. Dr. Ali determined that Curran died as a consequence of “ multiple sharp force injuries” and that the manner of death was homicide. On September 22, 2010, appellant was indicted in connection with Curran's death.

(1) Pretrial Proceedings

(a) Appellant's Counsel

On October 13, 2010, Thomas E.L. Klenk, Assistant Public Defender, entered his appearance in the case on behalf of appellant.

On April 17, 2011, appellant wrote a letter to the circuit court, stating, as follows:

I am writing because I have been incarcerated since October 1, 2010 and still have[not] received a Discovery, which I know was filed [October 13, 2010, and] entered [October 15, 2010,] and the Motion complied back [January 21, 2011], with Rule 4–263.

I[have] been having problems with my Defense Attorney Thomas Klenk and I believe he has[not] issued me [ ] my copy of the Discovery.

Please issue me a copy of this Discovery.

On May 6, 2011, at a pretrial hearing, another attorney appeared in place of Klenk, and the following exchange occurred between appellant and the circuit court:

[APPELLANT]: Your Honor, I have not been issued discovery. For seven months I have been incarcerated.... I've only seen my lawyer twice since I've been incarcerated the past seven months. And to be honest with you, he hasn't really—I don't know how to say this.

THE COURT: You don't think he's effectively representing you.

[APPELLANT]: There we go, yes.

THE COURT: Well, again, that's something that you need to talk to [Klenk] about on Tuesday.

[APPELLANT]: Well, I just want to know why I've been incarcerated.

THE COURT: Because you're charged with first[-]degree murder.

* * *

[APPELLANT]: Right. But I don't have any evidence shown towards me.

THE COURT: [Prosecutor], does the [S]tate have any evidence against this gentlem[a]n?

[PROSECUTOR]: Oh, the [S]tate has overwhelming evidence against this gentleman.... [D]iscovery was provided to [Klenk] in December of 2010 [.] ... [Discovery was f]airly extensive, your Honor, as you would imagine in a first-in a second[-]degree murder case.

THE COURT: Yeah, I would.

So it appears that the [S]tate has given the discovery to [Klenk]. Now if he hasn't shared it with you you have to ask him why, [appellant], but I can't answer that question. Certainly if you don't think he's representing your interests you have the right to take a number of courses of action. You can keep him as your attorney. You can dismiss him as your attorney. But if [you do] that the public defender is not going to provide you with another lawyer. So if you wanted to represent yourself—which, you know, we have a saying in the law, one who represents himself, even if that person's an attorney, has a fool for a client. So if you have problems with Mr. Klenk's representation of you, you can certainly address them by way of a letter to ... the district public defender.... And I would put your complaints in a letter [to the district public defender], after you share them with Mr. Klenk. I think you ought to give Mr. Klenk an opportunity to address your concerns first. Maybe he has some plans for doing that. If you are not satisfied, then contact [the district public defender] and tell [the district public defender] what's going on. Ask him to intervene for you. Does that make sense?

A VOICE: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. So the matter is set in for next Tuesday. Hopefully Mr. Klenk, who is sick, will be well enough to attend next week, and you will be able to talk to him about these matters; and you'll be before a judge, [appellant]. If you want to address the court with regard to any of these concerns you can certainly do that.

[APPELLANT]: Thank you.

Klenk continued to represent appellant throughout pretrial hearings of May 10, 2011, May 20, 2011, and May 26, 2011, the trial, from June 13, 2011, through June 16, 2011, and at sentencing on August 24, 2011, and appellant did not raise an issue as to Klenk's representation again.

(b) Competency to Stand Trial

On January 21, 2011, at a pretrial hearing, appellant's counsel advised the circuit court that appellant's mother had informed him that appellant had “a history of some admissions in the hospitals[,]” which raised an issue he wanted to pursue. On January 28, 2011, appellant's counsel filed a “Suggestion of Incompetency,” formally requesting a competency evaluation and the circuit court granted the request. On the same day, the circuit court issued an Order for In Custody Competency Evaluation, ordering the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to examine appellant “to determine whether [appellant] is able to understand the nature or object of the proceedings and to assist in his defense[.]”

On April 11, 2011, Andrew W. Donohue, DO, a forensic psychiatrist, submitted a letter to the circuit court, stating as follows:

Pursuant to [the] order under Criminal Procedure § 3–105 of January [2]8, 2011, I attempted to examine [appellant]. I was unable to complete the evaluation because [appellant] refused to participate, stating that he did not think that the examination was necessary and he expressed concern that to take part would potentially incriminate him.

If [appellant] changes his mind and agrees to take part in the evaluation, I would be happy to see him.

On May 10, 2011, at a pretrial hearing, appellant's counsel informed the circuit court of appellant's refusal to participate in the competency evaluation.³ On May 26, 2011, at a pretrial hearing, appellant's counsel advised the circuit court that the request for a competency evaluation was being withdrawn. The following exchange occurred:

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: Your Honor we are here for an issue of competency to stand trial. And after further discussions with [appellant], both substantively and about this particular issue, I have come to the conclusion that I should withdraw my request. And that is with [appellant]'s concurrence.

Is that correct, [appellant]?

[APPELLANT]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. And you understand the consequences of withdrawing that motion?

[APPELLANT]: Yes.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: And the consequences are there will be no such evaluation?

[APPELLANT]: Yes.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: All right.

THE COURT: Because it's my understanding they attempted to perform an evaluation and they wrote back that at that time you refused to participate, so that's why we were going to send you for further evaluation at Clifton T. Perkins. But you are withdrawing the motion?

[APPELLANT]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And that's all moot.

On June 13, 2011, the case proceeded to trial.

(2) Trial Proceedings

(a) Witness Testimony

Because our resolution of the instant appeal involves the sufficiency of evidence, we set forth the lengthy and detailed facts of the case. The facts are set forth below in the order the witnesses testified at trial.

As a witness for the State, Michael Martin, a friend of the deceased, testified that he had known Curran, whom he thought of as a “brother,” for approximately sixteen years, and that he saw Curran twice a week. Martin described Curran as follows: “He was an old guy. Pretty feeble. Dying of cancer, ... and liver was shot and [his] kidneys were gone, and [he was] on [ ] medications and he drank and smoked.” ⁴ Martin testified that, in February 2010, Curran lived alone in a two-room house with his dog. According to Martin, Curran stored “his pills, bottles of pills, medication” and money in a dresser drawer in his bedroom. Martin testified that he drove Curran to the doctor's office and the pharmacy to fill his prescriptions because Curran “could barely walk.”

Martin testified that he last saw Curran on Tuesday, February 9, 2010. Martin last spoke with...