Opinion ID: 2322590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Curtis's Petition

Text: We now turn to the merits of Appellant Curtis's appeal. Unlike Douglas's petition, Curtis's petition for writ of actual innocence contains only one claim of newly discovered evidence: an affidavit from his grandmother, indicating that she is willing to testify in court that she never mentioned the name Airy, or Eri, to the police. The State contends that Curtis's petition fails because he did not assert that the affidavit could not have been obtained within one year after the mandate from the Court of Special Appeals and, moreover, the affidavit is not newly discovered evidence because Curtis indicates in his petition that he was aware of the information after his conviction. The State further contends that, even if the affidavit was newly discovered evidence, the grandmother's testimony would be unlikely to create a significant or substantial possibility that Curtis would be found not guilty because the affidavit does not undermine the victim's unequivocal testimony that Curtis shot him. Curtis counters that his grandmother's testimony would create a substantial or significant possibility that a jury would find him not guilty because, as evidenced by the jury's interest in the identity of Airy, or Eri during their deliberations, the theory that Curtis coerced witnesses factored heavily into Curtis's conviction. We agree with the State that the Circuit Court properly denied Curtis's petition because the evidence of his grandmother's affidavit is not newly discovered evidence. We therefore need not consider whether Curtis has satisfied the other requirements that might entitle him to a hearing on the petition. In Argyrou v. State, we explained that, [e]xculpatory evidence known . . . prior to the expiration of the time for filing a motion for a new trial, though unavailable, in fact, is not newly discovered evidence. 349 Md. 587, 600 n. 9, 709 A.2d 1194, 1200 n. 9 (1998) (emphasis added). Consequently, even construing Curtis's pro se petition liberally, his claim fails. Curtis indicated in his petition that he wanted to obtain an affidavit from his grandmother stating that she never mentioned the name Airy, or Eri, to the police, but could not because of his grandmother's health and his own incarceration. As evidence that is known but unavailable does not constitute newly discovered evidence, Curtis's claim does not meet the requirements to obtain a hearing under C.P. § 8-301.