Opinion ID: 2298009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continued Motions

Text: After we decided Grandison V, Grandison's pursuit of further relief continued unabated. He first filed a motion on February 3, 2006, to reopen his postconviction proceedings, in which he argued that: (1) several items in the State's evidence were deficient under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); (2) the trial court had erroneously pre-marked mitigating factors on a jury sentencing form; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Grandison concomitantly filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, in which he made the same arguments about evidence under Crawford, the jury sentencing form, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Shortly thereafter, he filed an Addendum to Motion to Reopen Post-Conviction Proceedings and Request for Hearing and Discovery. In this addendum, he alleged statewide racial bias and discriminatory prosecution with respect to the death penalty. The State answered all three motions. Next, Grandison filed a Second Addendum to his motion to reopen the postconviction proceedings; an Addendum to his motion to correct the illegal sentence; and a supplement to his previously filed claim about racial bias. This was only the beginning. The record also reflects, inter alia, the following activity by Grandison:  Four motions filed March 1, 2007:(1) An ex parte motion to withdraw counsel of record; (2) a motion for a new resentencing hearing or, alternatively, to file a belated appeal; (3) a motion for a new trial; and (4) a motion to correct an illegal sentence.  Another motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed March 16, 2007.  A combined motion for a new trial and motion to reopen postconviction proceedings, filed August 9, 2007.  A motion, filed October 24, 2007, claiming that the State's failure to answer old motions required the court to grant them.  A motion for an evidentiary hearing on previous motions, filed May 27, 2008. Resolving all the unsettled issues before it, the Circuit Court distilled everything raised in the pending motions and related hearings [6] into four avenues of relief sought by Grandison. In a memorandum opinion on September 1, 2010, the court denied relief. First, the Circuit Court addressed Grandison's motion to reopen postconviction proceedings. The court analyzed this motion on five points: Grandison contends the Court incorrectly admitted into evidence: 1. Reports of [his] behavior within the institution, 2. Victim impact statements, 3. The doctor's statement concerning Helen Kondilidis's grave health, and erred when it: 4. Pre-marked the mitigators in Grandison's favor on the sentencing form, and, 5. Failed to prevent the systematic exclusion of African-American jurors. After analyzing all five issues, the Circuit Court denied Grandison's motion to reopen postconviction proceedings across the board. Each of these five issues is now before us: Issues 1-3 are now presented as Question Three; Issue 4 is now presented in Question Four; and Issue 5 is presented in Question Two. Second, the Circuit Court addressed Grandison's motion to correct an illegal sentence. Grandison made two arguments in support of this motion: (1) that the death sentence was illegal because the aggravating circumstances leading to Grandison's death sentence happened after the murders had already been committed; and (2) that the death penalty has been illegal in Maryland since 2006. The Circuit Court addressed the merits of these arguments and denied Grandison's motion to correct an illegal sentence. Issue 1 is now presented to this Court as Question Nine, and Issue 2 is now presented to us, in moderately different form, as part of Question Seven. Third, the Circuit Court addressed Grandison's motion for a new resentencing hearing. Grandison offered three arguments in support of this motion: (1) he was entitled to litigate the admissibility of State's Exhibit 21; (2) the trial court's reasonable doubt instruction during his 1984 trial was improper; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Circuit Court addressed the merits of these arguments and denied his motion. Issue 1 is now presented to this Court as Question Five; Issue 2 is presented as Question Six; and Issue 3 is not before us. Lastly, the Circuit Court addressed Grandison's motion for a new trial. The court summarized Grandison's argument in support of this motion: 1. The State used perjured testimony of Cheryl Piechowicz and James Savage, 2. The State knowingly suppressed exculpatory evidence that showed Etta Horne, Charlene Sparrow, and Helen Kondilidis committed perjury, and 3. The mental [disorder] of Helen Kondilidis at the time of the 1984 trial [was undisclosed]. Again, the court addressed the merits of each of these arguments and denied the motion. These three arguments are now before us, presented as Question Eight. The Circuit Court concluded: Accordingly, after full and fair consideration of the arguments of the parties, this Court finds that, for the reasons mentioned, it is ORDERED that, any and all relief requested by Movant Anthony Grandison is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED.