Preview:

HEADNOTE:

Kami Lee Anthony v. State of Maryland, No. 1621, September Term, 1996

_________________________________________________________________

CRIMINAL LAW -- SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE -Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine when the existence of the agreement is proved and unnecessary to prove substance actually distributed was cocaine.

CRIMINAL LAW -- SENTENCING -Trial court may properly consider probations before judgment.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1621 September Term, 1996

KAMI LEE ANTHONY

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

Harrell, Eyler, Garrity, John J., (Ret., specially assigned) JJ. Opinion by Eyler, J. Filed:September 8, 1997

Kami Lee Anthony, the appellant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County (John W. Sause, Jr., J.) of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Appellant was sentenced

to a term of fifteen years' incarceration for the conviction. Two questions are presented on appeal: I. Was the evidence sufficient to support appellant's conviction of conspiracy to distribute cocaine? Did the trial court improperly consider appellant's probations before judgment in sentencing appellant?

II.

We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We further hold that

the trial court did not improperly consider appellant's probations before judgment in determining her sentence.

FACTS At approximately 6:30 p.m. on June 15, 1995, Trooper First Class Keith Elzey, a member of the Maryland State Police Drug Enforcement Division, was working in an undercover capacity investigating drug activity in Grasonville, Queen Anne's County. He pulled his unmarked vehicle up to the house at 200 Schoolhouse Lane, the residence of a man known as Bosley and his girlfriend, Tanya. A woman, whom Trooper Elzey identified at trial as

appellant, approached him and asked if he was "looking for

- 1 -

Bosley."

When the trooper replied that he was, she told him that Trooper

Bosley was asleep, and asked him "how much" he wanted.

Elzey understood her to be asking how much crack cocaine he wanted. Trooper Elzey responded that it was "okay," and asked Appellant told him that Bosley was "all

her what was "going on."

out," which Elzey understood to mean all out of crack cocaine. Trooper Elzey then asked about Tanya. Tanya had "gone to get a hit." Appellant told him that

Appellant offered to take the

trooper somewhere, he believed to get some crack cocaine, but he declined. Appellant then told him to come back and "do some

partying," which he understood to mean "smoke crack cocaine." Trooper Elzey left, but returned to the house a short time later. yard. At that time, he saw appellant and Tanya in the front He stopped his vehicle. Trooper Elzey, Tanya, and

appellant had a conversation about crack cocaine1, after which Trooper Elzey and Tanya left together in the trooper's car. Trooper Elzey subsequently dropped Tanya off at a different location.2 The trooper returned to Schoolhouse Lane at approximately 7:45 p.m. He saw appellant and another woman3 at the Senior

1

The trooper did not relate the conversation itself.

Trooper Elzey testified that he purchased crack cocaine from Tanya on this occasion, but the testimony was stricken upon objection by appellant.
3

2

This individual was never identified. - 2 -

Center on Route 18, near Schoolhouse Lane, and heard appellant call to him. When he pulled over, appellant asked whether Tanya He replied that Tanya had given him "a Appellant then told

had "taken care" of him.

few crumbs," meaning some crack cocaine.

Trooper Elzey, "[T]hat is the way she is, just a crack-head." She then told the trooper, "Come on, I'll get something." Appellant, Trooper Elzey, and the other woman got into the trooper's car and appellant told the trooper to drive to Cemetery Road. While they were on that road, appellant yelled, "There he The trooper did so. The trooper gave Appellant then

is," and told Trooper Elzey to stop.

Appellant asked Trooper Elzey for money.

appellant $20, and told her to get him "twenty."

exited the vehicle and approached Paul Richardson, a man from whom the trooper had previously bought crack cocaine. After

appellant and Richardson conversed, Richardson handed appellant a substance and appellant handed him the $20. to the car and got in. area. When they were back on Route 18, appellant handed Trooper Elzey the suspected crack cocaine. Trooper Elzey told her that At that time, Appellant returned

Trooper Elzey and the two women left the

he had to go and instructed her to leave the car.

appellant "started yelling, screaming, cussing, saying that she wasn't going anywhere until we did some partying." The

unidentified woman, who to that point had not said anything, got out of the car and told appellant to do the same. - 3 Appellant

"kept on cussing, and saying she wasn't going anyplace until we lit up, lit up, smoked the crack." Trooper Elzey again told

appellant to get out of the car, but "[s]he just said not until we party and smoke some crack." Eventually, after half a minute

to a minute, appellant exited the car and walked away.

DISCUSSION I. Appellant was originally charged with possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Pursuant to Maryland Code, Courts &

Judicial Proceedings Article,

Download Anthony v. State.pdf

Maryland Law