Potts v. State, 151 A.3d 59

On Sept. 2, 2015, plainclothes Baltimore City officers in an unmarked vehicle observed Ivan Potts walking; officers saw his right hand near his waistband/dip area, behavior they associated with carrying a weapon.
Potts allegedly withdrew a handgun, turned his back, and fled; detectives chased and apprehended him; officers later recovered a loaded handgun with a 16‑round magazine along the route he ran.
Potts was charged and convicted by a jury of: wearing/carrying/transporting a firearm; possession of a firearm after a prior conviction for a crime of violence (PS §5‑133(c)(1)); and possession of ammunition while prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm (PS §5‑133.1).
At trial, Detective Hendrix testified that other officers told him Potts had his arm “cupped” to his body; defense objected as hearsay; the court prevented further repetition but did not expressly sustain the objection.
The court sentenced Potts to 8 years for the firearm offense (first 5 years without parole) and concurrent 1‑year terms for the other convictions; the commitment record mistakenly showed a three‑year term for wearing/carrying/transporting a firearm.
Potts appealed raising (1) admission of hearsay, (2) correction of commitment record, (3) merger/unit‑of‑prosecution challenge to multiple sentences, and (4) sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Potts)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1. Admission of hearsay during Detective Hendrix’s testimony	Testimony that other officers said Potts had his arm “cupped” was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial	Any error was harmless because the testimony was cumulative of Sergeant Jenkins’s and Detective Ward’s testimony	Error in admitting the hearsay was harmless; convictions affirmed
2. Commitment record/docket inconsistency	Commitment record wrongly states a 3‑year term for wearing/carrying; must match oral sentence	State agrees the record is erroneous and should be corrected	Case remanded to correct commitment record and docket to reflect oral sentence
3. Separate sentences for firearm and ammunition offenses (merger/unit‑of‑prosecution)	Both convictions arose from possession of the same loaded gun; sentences should not be separate	Statutes are distinct (firearm vs ammunition); Legislature intended separate punishments; no merger under tests	No merger; separate sentences allowed; issue not preserved for fundamental‑fairness argument but rejected on the merits
4. Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence was conflicting and insufficient to prove Potts exercised dominion or control over the firearm	Officers’ eyewitness testimony and recovery of the gun on the flight path support convictions	Evidence sufficient; any conflicts went to weight not sufficiency; convictions upheld

State v. Simms, 420 Md. 705 (discussing harmless‑error standard)
Dove v. State, 415 Md. 727 (cumulative evidence and harmless error analysis)
Graves v. State, 334 Md. 30 (inadmissible hearsay and unfair prejudice concerns)
Clark v. State, 218 Md. App. 230 (unit‑of‑prosecution analysis for multiple sections violated by single firearm)
Melton v. State, 379 Md. 471 (single‑firearm unit‑of‑prosecution discussion)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (required‑evidence test for merger)
Lawson v. State, 187 Md. App. 101 (transcript controls over commitment record discrepancy)
Bazzle v. State, 426 Md. 541 (contemporaneous objection rules on preserving evidence objections)
Haile v. State, 431 Md. 448 (preservation rule for sufficiency challenges; motion for judgment of acquittal required)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)