Alkaline Water Company Case Study

Caldwell further alleges that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for the offense of conspiracy to commit burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. The State, for its part, avers that Caldwell’s argument is waived because the issue was never presented to the trial court. Caldwell acknowledges that the issue as to whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction was not raised before the trial court. Nevertheless, Caldwell asserts that we should engage in plain error review and reverse the conviction. Alternatively, Caldwell contends that review of this sufficiency claim is proper because Caldwell’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court. We hold that this issue is not preserved and we decline to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Caldwell of conspiracy to burglarize the Alkaline Water Company. The scope of appellate review is articulated in Md. Rule 8-131(a) and provides that “[o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court . . . .” This rule has …show more content…
at 340-41. Moreover, not only was the legal question at issue well settled, but had the defendant’s counsel argued against the sufficient of the evidence, the court would have had no choice but to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment. Accordingly, we determined that it was objectively unreasonable and unprofessional for the attorney to fail to argue that the defendant did not elude police, and had he done so the outcome would have been different. We, therefore, reversed the defendant’s conviction on direct appeal because his counsel was