Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 117013002
Nazarian, Arthur, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Senior Judge,
Specially Assigned), JJ.
Cannon family was moving into a new home in Baltimore, they
were fired upon, then threatened by an armed neighbor who
vowed to burn the residence. A jury in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City acquitted Teddy Shannon, appellant, of charges
in the shooting but convicted him of threatening arson and
illegally possessing a firearm after a disqualifying
conviction. Appellant was sentenced to a total of seventeen
years and ordered to pay restitution of $2, 400, as
reimbursement for the Cannons' security deposit and first
month's rent under the lease they abandoned after this
presents the following issues for our review:
1. Must Appellant's conviction and sentence for
possession of a regulated firearm be vacated because it is
based upon an indictment that fails to charge an offense?
2. Did the trial court err in ordering restitution?
reasons that follow, we conclude there are no grounds to
vacate appellant's convictions or the restitution order.
In resolving the restitution challenge, we apply lessons from
the Court of Appeals' recent holding in In re
G.R., Md., No. 32, Sept. Term 2018, 2019 WL 1434571
(filed Apr. 1, 2019), considering the "direct
result" standard for restitution under Md. Code, §
11-603(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article ("CP")
as it relates to costs incurred "to restore and maintain
the sanctity and security" of a household made insecure
by criminal activity. In the circumstances presented here, we
conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its
discretion in ordering restitution for a lease payment for
premises abandoned by the victims after appellant threatened
to burn down the building.
December 10, 2016, Jason Cannon and his family "were
moving into the house on the corner" at 1738 East 30th
Street in Baltimore. Before taking possession of the
premises, Latonya Coleman-Cannon paid their landlord $2, 400,
representing a security deposit and the first month's
rent. Appellant lived across the street, at 1735 East
evening, Mr. Cannon and a friend had just parked on the
street in front of the new residence when Cannon "heard
multiple shots" and "tires screeching." As
Cannon got out of his car, "a guy from across the street
approached" them, carrying a gun, "and said,
what's up with you all, yo?" Cannon also heard
someone say, "pick up all the shells, yo."
Cannon was walking up the steps into the new house, he heard
conversation among the crowd gathered in the street,
concerning a distinctive white Lexus SUV targeted in the
shooting. Cannon knew his stepson had been driving to the new
house with a friend, in his mother's white "old
school" Lexus SUV. Cannon turned around and confronted
the group, asking "why were they shooting at us."
Appellant, who was carrying a gun, answered, "[T]his is
my block. I protect my block. We shoot first, ask questions
his friend pulled him into the house, Cannon was able to
contact his stepson and his companion, who were "up the
block[.]" When Cannon drove to them, he discovered that
the Lexus had shattered windows and was "riddled with
bullets." He called 911, then returned to the new house.
they waited for police, Ms. Coleman-Cannon arrived in a
separate vehicle. "[I]rate" over the shooting, she
confronted individuals in the street. Cannon, attempting to
de-escalate the situation, pulled her "around the back
of the house[.]"
followed and approached them. Lifting his jacket to display a
gun, he stated
that if any shots were fired off that night that he was going
to blow the house up. He was going to burn the house down. He
was going to kill the kids in my house. Call the police if I
want. They're not welcomed on my block.
for their lives, the Cannons went inside the house and
"slammed the door."
police officers arrived on the block, it "was extremely
hectic" and "chaotic." Outside in the street,
there were "[a] lot of people" "yelling,
screaming." They were upset with the Cannons, calling
them "snitches and stuff like that[.]" Appellant,
who was saying "vulgar things . . . a lot of negative
things[, ]" was arrested because he met "the
description of the person who was shooting a weapon[.]"
to Detective Marcus Sanders, appellant made "threats of
. . . violence and arson . . . not only to the officers that
were on the scene, but initially, as well as to the residents
that were actually right across the street." Video from
the detective's body camera, which recorded the encounter
with appellant, was played for the jury.
secured appellant's house until a search warrant was
executed. In that search, police recovered the leather jacket
worn by appellant that evening, which later tested positive
for gunshot residue. In addition, officers recovered a
"silver Ruger handgun," a "30 round magazine
for a Glock," a "40 caliber" shell casing, and
ammunition for different weapons.
on statements made by appellant during a phone call recorded
on December 11, while he was incarcerated, police obtained a
warrant to search a house at 1645 Abbotston Street, where the
name "Teddy" was written on the living room wall.
In the recorded call, appellant, referring to
"Chris" as the person who "do got it[, ]"
agreed that "he had it he walked out wit it[.]" At
the Abbotston Street residence, police recovered a
"black Glock 27, which is a 40 caliber[, ]"
"on the top floor outside roof," "inside of a
black trash bag" and "wrapped up." Firearms
examination established that the shell casing recovered at
appellant's residence was from a cartridge fired from the
Glock recovered at 1645 Abbotston Street.
shall add material from the record in our discussion of the
issues raised by appellant.
contends that his firearm conviction must be vacated because
it is premised on an indictment that did not allege a
criminal offense. This challenge arises from the following
portion of the indictment, which states in pertinent part:
. . . DEFENDANT, Teddy SHANNON, late of said City, heretofore
on or about December 10, 2016, at the 1700 block of East
30th Street, in the City of
Baltimore, State of Maryland, having
been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in Public
Safety Article, Section 5-101(c), to wit:
05/09/2008, Possession with Intent to Distribute, Case
No.: 107312013, did possess a regulated firearm, to wit:
Ruger P90DC, .45 Caliber Handgun, in violation of
Public Safety Article, Section 5-133(c) of the Annotated Code
of Maryland; against the peace, government and dignity of the
[PS 5-101; PS 5-133(c)] 11609
(Underlining in original; boldface added.)
crime charged in this count of the indictment is a violation
of § 5-133(c) of the Public Safety Article
("PS"), which provides in pertinent part:
Penalty for possession by convicted felon
(c)(1) A person may not possess a regulated firearm if the
person was previously convicted of:
(i) a crime of violence;
(ii) a violation of § 5-602, §
5-603, § 5-604, § 5-605, § 5-612, §
5-613, § 5-614, § 5-621, or § 5-622 of the
Criminal Law Article; or
(iii) an offense under the laws of another state or the
United States that would constitute one of the crimes listed
in item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph if committed in this
problem presented by Count Five is not a matter of dispute.
Although Public Safety § 5-101(c) defines a "crime
of violence" as one of eighteen enumerated offenses,
none of those predicate offenses is possession of a
controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute,
which is the offense appellant was convicted of on May 9,
2008, in Case No. 1073122013. Count Five mistakenly
identifies the predicate conviction for this charge under PS
§ 5-133(c), by mislabeling "Possession with Intent
to Distribute" as a "crime of violence."
contends that because the predicate offense identified in
Count Five was not a crime of violence as alleged in the
indictment, "the trial court was deprived of
jurisdiction to render a verdict or impose a sentence"
on that count. In support, appellant cites precedent
establishing that "where no cognizable crime is charged,
the court lacks fundamental subject matter jurisdiction to
render a judgment of conviction, i.e., it is powerless in
such circumstances to inquire into the facts, to apply the
law, and to declare the punishment for an offense."
Williams v. State, 302 Md. 787, 792 (1985) (citing
Pulley v. State, 287 Md. 406, 415-16 (1980);
Urciolo v. State, 272 Md. 607, 616 (1974)). See
also Md. Rule 4-252(d) ("A motion asserting failure
of the charging document to show jurisdiction in the court or
to charge an offense may be raised and determined at any
time."). Alternatively, appellant argues that "an
additional basis for vacating [his] conviction and sentence
for possession of a regulated firearm" is Md. Rule
4-345(a), providing that "[t]he court may correct an
illegal sentence at any time." See, ...