Coleman v. State
11 A.3d 326
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2010Background
- Appellant Leon Thomas Coleman was convicted by a Prince George’s County jury on 16 counts related to Kings Grant Court deals (8 theft over $500 under CL §7-104 and 8 failure to deposit funds in an escrow account under RP §10-301); the circuit court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 12 years and ordered restitution of $502,178.43.
- The Kings Grant Court project involved 11 lots; appellants misrepresented development status and permits, and funds from buyers were deposited variably into an operating account or escrow rather than a single construction escrow.
- OIG contracted with MDB Design Group for drawings and permit processing, but MDB and related engineers did not complete the required permits; Civtech later engaged for site work planning, with substantial unrepaid costs.
- Buyers financed their purchases with construction loans; initial advances funded land deeds, while construction draws were supposed to occur later, but no draws were made because construction lagged and development feasibility deteriorated.
- The State appealed on sufficiency of evidence for escrow violations and theft by deception, and whether the trial court properly admitted certain evidence and ordered restitution; the court reversed, holding insufficiency on key theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Escrow requirement sufficiency under RP §10-301 | OIG owed escrow obligations until deed and completion; funds not properly held or secured. | Escrow obligation terminated upon deed to the lot and not upon completion, and funds should have been refunded or used for proper construction. | Evidence insufficient; statute not applicable to these construction loan transactions; strict construction favors defendant. |
| Theft by deception under CL §7-104 | Deception occurred via false representations and misallocation of funds to buyers. | Breach of contract and insolvency, not intentional deceit; no intent to deceive proven. | Insufficient evidence of intent to deceive; convictions reversed. |
| Effect of post-settlement conduct on intent to deceive | Appellant continued deceptive communications after discovery of feasibility issues. | Deception, if any, occurred by or before the last settlement; post-settlement actions do not prove initial intent. | No basis to sustain theft by deception given timing of alleged deceit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwartz v. State, 103 Md.App. 378 (1995) (rejected theft/misappropriation in contractor-breach context; held contract remedies exclusive)
- Ishola v. State, 404 Md. 155 (2008) (strict construction of penal statutes; avoid extending criminal liability)
- Farris v. State, 351 Md. 24 (1998) (strict, historical view of penal interpretation in theft cases)