Coryea Dominique Webster v. State
108 A.3d 480
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- On April 27, 2012 Maryland State Police entered an apartment and found appellant Coryea Webster with his 2‑year‑old child; police recovered a loaded Hi‑Point 9mm semiautomatic rifle, ammunition, scales, hundreds of small baggies, 28 small bags of cocaine (9.1 g total), a .2 g pill later tested as BZP, and .5 g marijuana.
- A detention‑center ID with Webster’s photo and two notebooks were found on a bedroom nightstand; one notebook (State’s Exhibit 9) was admitted at trial.
- Webster was tried by jury and convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, possession of BZP (count initially charged as MDMA), possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of rifle by a person with a disqualifying conviction, possession of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime, and allowing a minor access to a firearm.
- Trial court admitted the notebook and allowed testimony identifying a nickname ("Yeah‑O") found in the notebook and, over objection, permitted the State to amend the indictment count from MDMA to BZP.
- On appeal the Court of Special Appeals reversed the BZP conviction (amendment error), vacated the marijuana sentence for resentencing (illegal sentence under amended law), and otherwise affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Webster's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Admission of notebook (State’s Ex. 9) — prejudicial vs probative | Notebook was unfairly prejudicial; probative value outweighed by prejudice (gang references, violent rap lyrics, gun drawings) | Notebook was relevant to drug activity (grams, list labeled "fiens", phone numbers) and not overtly gang‑related; admission within discretion | Not preserved on all claimed grounds; in any event, no abuse of discretion — notebook admissible |
| 2) Testimony that nickname "Yeah‑O" means cocaine (hearsay/propensity) | Testimony that nickname equaled cocaine was hearsay and improper propensity evidence | Testimony about name is non‑hearsay circumstantial evidence; any objection waived when testimony repeated without objection; error if any was harmless | No reversible error: nickname testimony not hearsay as offered and was cumulative; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| 3) Amendment of Count 5 from MDMA to BZP before trial | Amendment changed the identity of the CDS charged and altered the character of the offense (violates Rule 4‑204) | Both substances are Schedule I and the statutory penalty is the same, so amendment was permissible | Reversed conviction on Count 5 — amendment impermissible under Johnson v. State; changing the identity of the CDS changed the character of the offense |
| 4) Legality of 1‑year sentence for possession of marijuana (.5 g) | Sentence exceeded maximum in effect at sentencing after legislative amendment reducing penalty for <10 g; Waker requires applying law in effect at sentencing | Waker inapplicable; Stubbs controls (State’s charging discretion) | One‑year sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing consistent with penalty in effect at sentencing (vacated and remanded) |
| 5) Whether firearm sentences (P.S. §5‑206 and Crim. Law §5‑621) must merge | Sentences should merge under rule of lenity or fundamental fairness because based on possession of single firearm | Offenses have distinct elements and legislative history shows intent to punish separately; required evidence test not met | No merger; convictions and separate sentences may stand (other than issues already reversed/vacated) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzgerald v. State, 384 Md. 484 (trial‑court review rule and preservation principles)
- Bernadyn v. State, 390 Md. 1 (hearsay analysis and determining purpose of offered evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 358 Md. 384 (amendment that changes identity of CDS alters character of offense)
- Waker v. State, 431 Md. 1 (penalties in effect at sentencing control legality of sentence)
- Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2 (constructive/joint possession principles)