United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
BRAD K. EDMONDS, # 370076 Petitioner,
RICHARD DOVEY,  et al. Respondents.
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Edmonds seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, attacking, on Sixth Amendment grounds, the
constitutionality of his 2011 convictions in the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County. ECF No. 1. Respondents'
Answer was filed on November 18, 2015. ECF No. 14. Edmonds
has filed replies,  along with a motion for immediate
decision, release from custody, and a request for an
evidentiary hearing. ECF Nos. 16, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, &
29-31. In light of Edmonds' numerous supplemental
petitions, Respondents were directed to respond to his Fourth
Amendment claim involving the legality of the GPS device
placed on his vehicle. ECF No. 32. Respondents filed a
supplemental answer and Edmonds filed replies. ECF Nos.
34-36, & 41. This matter has been fully briefed. Upon
review, the Court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing.
See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts and Local
Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016); see also Fisher v. Lee,
215 F.3d 438, 455 (4th Cir. 2000) (petitioner not entitled to
a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). For reasons to
follow, Edmond's Petition of habeas corpus is denied.
March 21 and 22, 2011, Edmonds was tried by a jury in the
Circuit Court for Montgomery County. ECF Nos. 1-5. He was
convicted of first-degree burglary, possession of
burglar's tools, theft, breaking and entering a motor
vehicle, and rogue and vagabond. The Court of Special Appeals
of Maryland summarized the facts revealed at trial as
Prior to the events giving rise to the present case, Edmonds
had been suspected by the Prince William County and Fairfax
County police departments in a series of burglaries. As part
of their on-going investigation, these agencies covertly
placed a GPS monitor on his automobile. In the early hours of
November 17, 2010, the Virginia police realized that the
vehicle was being driven into Montgomery County. They alerted
the Montgomery County Police Department. . . .
At some point between midnight and 1 AM on November 17, 2010,
members of the Montgomery County Police Department's
Special Assignment Team conducted surveillance on a dark blue
Oldsmobile vehicle in the vicinity of Lake Potomac Drive. . .
. They observed Edmonds, dressed in black and wearing a black
mask and gloves, exit his vehicle around 1:00 AM. . . . The
officers were about thirty to forty feet from Edmonds when
observing him. . . . The two officers saw Edmonds walk onto
the driveway of 11740 Lake Potomac Drive, they then heard
glass shattering, and observed Edmonds reach into a silver
car and remove something from that vehicle. Then, Edmonds
reached into a maroon vehicle and removed something from that
vehicle. Edmonds proceeded into the backyard of 11740 Lake
Potomac Drive. The officers lost sight of Edmonds, and then
inspected the damage Edmonds had made to the cars.
[The two officers] then proceeded to 11720 Lake Potomac Drive
where they discovered Edmonds's car parked behind the
residence. The two waited in a wooded area, about thirty to
forty feet from the car; Edmonds arrived at the car a few
minutes later. Edmonds opened the trunk and placed items
inside, including some of the clothing he was wearing at the
time. He then removed his mask, and placed it behind the
driver's seat. Using night vision equipment, [one
officer] saw Edmonds's face as he removed his mask.
Edmonds then drove away from the scene in his car. . . .
Edmonds was apprehended later that night without incident . .
. . Edmonds was wearing dark jeans, a dark shirt, and dark
jacket at the time he was apprehended. Edmonds's vehicle
was searched; a ski mask was recovered behind the
driver's seat, and a screwdriver, wet gloves,
Maglite-type flashlights, and plyers were recovered from the
ECF No. 14-9 at 2-5.
commenced on March 21, 2011. After discussion with Judge
Rubin regarding severance of a criminal count and the
suppression of evidence related to the stop of Edmonds'
car, counsel proceeded to opening statement. ECF No. 14-2 at
5-26. The jury then heard testimony from members of the
Rockville Special Assignment Team (SAT), which performs
covert surveillance on street crimes, and citizens whose
automobiles and property were broken into. Id. at
close of the State's case, Defense counsel Ronald
Gottlieb moved for acquittal on each count based on the
sufficiency of the evidence. The requests were denied by
Judge Rubin. Id. at 82-88. The State rested its
case. The defense produced no witnesses. After listening to
instructions and closing arguments the jury found Edmonds
guilty of first-degree burglary, possession of burglary
tools, theft over $1, 000.00 to under $10, 000.00, and rogue
and vagabond. He was acquitted of other counts of rogue and
vagabond and of theft under $1, 000.00. Id. at
July 5, 2011 hearing, Edmonds moved for a new trial, alleging
that he was not provided full discovery and that evidence was
planted by police. The motion was denied by Judge Rubin who
proceeded to sentencing. Edmonds was sentenced to a term of
twenty years incarceration as to the burglary charge, a
consecutive three years as to the possession of burglar's
tools charge, an eight-year term as to the theft charge, to
be served consecutive to the burglary and possession charges,
and a two-year sentence as to the rogue and vagabond charge,
consecutive to the previous three charges. A cumulative 33
years was imposed on Edmonds. ECF No. 14-5.
by counsel, Edmonds raised the following claims before the
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland:
I. The trial court erred in failing to merge Edmonds's
convictions on possession of burglary tools into first-degree
burglary and the rogue and vagabond conviction into theft;
II. The evidence was legally insufficient to support
Edmonds's conviction of possession of burglar's
ECF No. 14-6.
about September 19, 2012, Edmonds filed a self-represented
supplemental brief raising several issues, primarily
attacking the police's placement of a global positioning
system (“GPS”) locator on his vehicle. He
additionally contended that the Montgomery County Police
Department used information from the GPS unit, evidence was
illegally seized by police officers, and all of Edmonds'
sentences and convictions were illegal due to the
insufficiency of the evidence. ...