McBride, Danjuan v. State

Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. 120280007
*This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 2664
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
DANJUAN MCBRIDE
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 16, 2026

‒Unreported Opinion‒
Danjuan McBride, appellant, appeals from an order issued by the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City denying his motion for a new trial. 	He raises a single issue on appeal:
whether the court erred in denying the motion without a hearing. 	For the reasons that
follow, we shall affirm.
On March 21, 2022, a jury convicted appellant of first-degree murder, second-
degree murder, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and possession
of a regulated firearm after a disqualifying conviction. This Court affirmed his convictions
on direct appeal. 	McBride v. State, No. 847, Sept. Term 2022 (filed July 5, 2023). 	On
January 8, 2026, appellant filed a “Motion for a New Trial Based on Perjured Testimony,”
wherein he claimed that the lead detective in his case had falsely testified to the grand jury
that a handgun recovered in a search of his girlfriend’s home had been “used in” the crime.
He further claimed that the detective had testified falsely at trial when, although
acknowledging that the firearm had not been forensically tested at the time of the grand
jury proceedings, he “believed it was a true statement” when he made it. 	Finally, he
asserted that the prosecutor knew the testimony was false yet failed to correct it, in violation
of Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). The court denied the motion without a hearing,
finding that a motion for a new trial must generally be filed within 10 days after a verdict,
and that it had previously heard and denied another motion for a new trial that he filed
shortly after the verdict raising the same issue. This appeal followed.
Maryland Rule 4-331, governing motions for a new trial, is structured so that relief
“is available on three progressively narrower sets of grounds but over the course of three
progressively 	longer 	time 	periods.” 	Isley 	v. 	State, 129 	Md. 	App. 	611, 	623

‒Unreported Opinion‒
2
(2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, Merritt v.
State, 367 Md. 17, 24 (2001). The Rule provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Within ten days of verdict. On motion of the defendant filed
within ten days after a verdict, the court, in the interest of justice, may
order a new trial.
(b) Revisory power. The court has revisory power and control over
the judgment to set aside an unjust or improper verdict and grant a
new trial:
* * *
(2) in the circuit courts, on motion filed within 90 days after its
imposition of sentence. Thereafter, the court has revisory power and
control over the judgment in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity.
(c) Newly discovered evidence. The court may grant a new trial or
other appropriate relief on the ground of newly discovered evidence
which could not have been discovered by due diligence in time to
move for a new trial pursuant to section (a) of this Rule:
(1) on motion filed within one year after the later of (A) the date
the court imposed sentence or (B) the date the court received a
mandate issued by the final appellate court to consider a direct appeal
from the judgment or a belated appeal permitted as post-conviction
relief[.]
Md. Rule 4-331 (a–c).
Here, appellant filed his motion for a new trial more than three years after the
verdict, and more than one year after the court received the mandate from this Court, which
was the final appellate court to consider his direct appeal from judgment. Consequently, it
was untimely under all three subsections of Rule 4-331, and the court did not err for
denying it for that reason alone. 	Moreover, even if the motion had been timely filed
pursuant to subsection (c), it failed to allege the existence of newly discovered evidence

‒Unreported Opinion‒
3
because the detective’s grand jury testimony and trial testimony were discoverable in time
to move for a new trial pursuant to subsection (a). In fact, appellant raised the same issue
in a motion for a new trial that he filed prior to sentencing, which the court denied on June
23, 2022.
Appellant nevertheless claims that a hearing was required because the motion was,
in fact, a petition for writ of actual innocence. 	However, appellant did not caption his
motion as a petition for writ of actual innocence, did not cite Section 8-301 of the Criminal
Law Article or Maryland Rule 4-332 in the motion, and did not allege that his conviction
was based on an offense that he did not commit. Thus, there was no basis for the court to
have treated the motion as anything other than a motion for a new trial. But as previously
set forth, the grand jury and trial testimony that appellant relied on was not newly
discovered evidence. Consequently, even if we were to construe his motion as a petition
for writ of actual innocence, the court did not err in denying it without a hearing. See Crim.
Proc. Art. § 8-301 (stating that a petition for writ of actual innocence must be based on
“newly discovered evidence that . . . could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Maryland Rule 4-331”).
JUDGMENT 	OF 	THE 	CIRCUIT
COURT 	FOR 	BALTIMORE 	CITY
AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY
APPELLANT.