Simms v. State
155 A.3d 937
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Police responded to a hotel theft-of-services report; hotel employees identified two men who had been ejected from a room and seen leaving the hotel.
- Corporal Rajcsok located two men in a mall food court matching descriptions; one (Brown) fled and was chased; Simms remained and was handcuffed when officer returned.
- Officers searched the tables and found bags containing suspected heroin and cocaine near where Brown had been sitting; hotel staff later identified both men as the earlier occupants.
- Observers told officers Simms had shoved his hands down his pants; at the station a strip search produced bags from Simms’s inner gluteal cleft containing ethylone and other substances.
- Simms was charged with multiple drug and theft counts and tried on an agreed statement of facts for conspiracy to distribute MDMA (count amended from heroin); court convicted and sentenced him to 4 years; State nol prossed other charges.
- While the appeal was pending the State nol prossed the conspiracy conviction as well; the Court of Special Appeals held the appeal was not moot and reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Simms's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after post-conviction nol pros | Nol pros is a legal nullity post-conviction; court can provide remedy (e.g., suppression ruling) | Post-jeopardy nol pros moots appeal because remedy is eliminated | Appeal not moot; post-conviction nol pros ineffective to bar review because it would let State evade appellate scrutiny |
| Standing to challenge search of colleague’s bag (related suppression issue) | Sought suppression of all drug evidence; argued arrest/search lacked probable cause and violated CP §2-203 | Argued Simms lacked standing re: Brown’s bag and trial court correctly denied suppression | Court assumed suppression issue preserved but did not reach it after reversing conviction on sufficiency grounds |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to distribute MDMA | Agreed statement of facts contained no evidence of MDMA; conviction legally insufficient | Conceded insufficiency but asked the court to vacate rather than reverse | Conviction reversed for insufficient evidence; reversal prevents retrial on that charge |
| Remedy following insufficiency | Reverse conviction so defendant cannot be retried on that charge | Vacate conviction (lesser form) | Court reversed (not merely vacated) because failure was substantive and defendant should not face retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Gen. v. Anne Arundel Cty. Sch. Bus Contractors Ass’n., 286 Md. 324 (discusses mootness and existing controversy)
- Cottman v. State, 395 Md. 729 (appellate courts dismiss moot appeals)
- Ward v. State, 290 Md. 76 (nol pros is prosecutorial discretion but not absolute)
- Hook v. State, 315 Md. 25 (limits on nol pros where fundamental fairness implicated)
- Hooper v. State, 293 Md. 162 (effect of nol pros on retrial of particular charges)
- State v. Martin, 367 Md. 53 (discussion of timing of nol pros relative to jeopardy)
- State v. Taylor, 371 Md. 617 (effect of agreed statement of facts on record and charges)
- State v. Shaw, 282 Md. 231 (procedural implications of plea/statement dispositions)
- Bynum v. State, 277 Md. 703 (case discussing nol pros timing at trial conclusion)
- Blondes v. State, 273 Md. 435 (nol pros entered after trial begun and implications)
- Titus v. State, 423 Md. 548 (reversal required where evidence insufficient to sustain conviction)