Moulden v. State, 212 Md. App. 331

Background

Brian Lee Moulden was convicted in multiple Anne Arundel County cases for robberies, assaults, reckless endangerment and theft arising from incidents in October 2010; sentences varied across four consolidated case numbers.
Police, investigating a series of robberies described by victims as committed by “B” (black male, ~6'1"–6'3", cornrows/dreads), observed two men on bicycles via live feed; one (Moulden) abandoned his bike and fled into Apartment F when an officer arrived.
A resident (Sherry Brown) identified herself as leaseholder of Apartment F, said “B” was inside, consented to a search at the scene and later signed a written consent; officers recovered items linking victims and Moulden.
At plea, the parties agreed any sentences in K-10-2230 and K-10-2231 would run concurrent; the court later announced that suspended time in K-10-2230 would be served consecutive to suspended time in K-10-2231 if probation was violated.
At trial for one robbery (K-10-2131), victim Ramirez testified Moulden pointed what Ramirez believed was a plastic gun at him, struggled, and Moulden took Ramirez’s wallet; jury convicted Moulden of reckless endangerment among other counts.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Moulden's Argument	Held
1. Motion to suppress: was there probable cause to arrest and was the apartment search suppressible?	Probable cause existed from (a) matching description, (b) flight/abandoning bike, and (c) companion identifying the runner as "B"; Brown validly consented.	Description was too vague and uncorroborated; flight from officer did not establish probable cause; consent search was fruit of illegal arrest and standing/where seized not shown.	Denied. Court found probable cause to arrest and Moulden lacked standing to contest Brown’s consent; search validly based on tenant consent.
2. Plea/sentencing: did the court violate the plea agreement by making suspended time potentially consecutive on probation violation?	Court had discretion to impose sanctions and conditions on probation.	Plea agreement required sentences in K-10-2230 and K-10-2231 to run concurrent; making suspended time consecutive on violation breaches the plea.	Yes. That conditional consecutive exposure violated the plea; that aspect of the sentence must be vacated.
3. Sufficiency: was evidence sufficient for reckless endangerment based on pointing a gun Ramirez thought was plastic?	Jury could discredit Ramirez’s belief or conclude the object could cause serious injury (e.g., BB gun or bludgeon).	Victim testified the gun was fake; no evidence it was operable or capable of inflicting death/serious injury.	No. Under the circumstances, a plastic/inoperable gun without evidence it could fire or be used as a dangerous bludgeon did not establish the substantial-risk element of reckless endangerment.

Key Cases Cited

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (warrant requirement and exclusionary rule principles)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless home arrests and Fourth Amendment limits)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (searches/seizures outside judicial process presumptively unreasonable)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (warrant requirement presumption and exceptions)
Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 419 Md. 450 (Md. 2011) (warrantless arrest based on probable cause for felony)
Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70 (Md. 1995) (standards for warrantless felony arrest)
Nestor v. State, 243 Md. 438 (1966) (tenant consent to search binds co-occupants)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (limits on co-occupant consent when co-occupant objects)
Haley v. State, 398 Md. 106 (Md. 2007) (appellate review of suppression and probable cause analysis)
Nguyen v. State, 189 Md. App. 501 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009) (limitations on modifying sentences/conditions at probation violation)
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (common authority and consent searches)
Wieland v. State, 101 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994) (brandishing a loaded weapon can create substantial risk)
Minor v. State, 326 Md. 436 (Md. 1992) (reckless conduct creating substantial risk)
Albrecht v. State, 336 Md. 475 (Md. 1994) (reckless endangerment and police conduct factors)
Jones v. State, 357 Md. 408 (Md. 2000) (elements of reckless endangerment)
Pagotto v. State, 361 Md. 528 (Md. 2000) (objective recklessness standard)