Opinion
1392-2021
06-30-2022
ALVIN FAULKNER v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No.: 41407C
Berger, Reed, Meredith, Timothy E. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
OPINION [*]
PER CURIAM
In 1989, following trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, a jury found Alvin Faulkner, appellant, guilty of attempted second-degree murder, robbery with a deadly or dangerous weapon, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. In the ensuing decades appellant filed numerous unsuccessful attacks on his convictions and sentences.
This was appellant's second trial for these charges. His convictions from his first trial were reversed by this Court in Faulkner v. State, 73 Md.App. 511 (1988). Appellant took an appeal from his second trial too, but on that occasion, we affirmed his convictions. Faulkner v. State, No. 1053, Sept. Term, 1989 (filed unreported February 21, 1990).
On November 2, 2021, appellant filed a paper in the circuit court titled "Order for Appeal" which we treated as a notice of appeal. The record reflects that, on October 6, 2021, the circuit court issued a series of orders adverse to appellant. It appears to us that those orders granted a State's motion to quash a subpoena that had been requested by appellant, and denied a motion for appropriate relief, a motion for reduction or modification of sentence, a motion for outpatient drug commitment, a motion seeking the production of grand jury testimony, and a motion related to venue.
Although, in his pro se briefs before this Court, appellant raises claims seemingly related to the circuit court's October 6, 2021 actions: those terse and nebulous claims, asserted without any context whatsoever, fail to explain to us what relief appellant had sought; why he was factually, legally, or otherwise entitled to it; and why the circuit court erred in not granting it to him.
We have liberally construed appellant's pro se papers. See Simms v. Shearin, 221 Md.App. 460, 480 (2015) (noting that we generally liberally construe papers filed by pro se litigants).
As we see it, appellant has utterly failed in his burden to produce before this Court anything supporting a finding of a reversible error. See Van Meter v. State, 30 Md.App. 406, 408 (1976) (holding that an appellate court "cannot be expected to delve through the record to unearth factual support favorable to appellant and then seek out law to sustain his position").
As a result, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.
[*]This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.