Schwartz, Everette v. State

Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case Nos. C-24-CR-24-001352 and C-24-CR-24-001356
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
Nos. 1284 and 1387
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
EVERETTE SCHWARTZ
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 14, 2026
*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 Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of two counts of wearing,
carrying, and transporting a handgun on or about his person, one count of wearing,
carrying, and transporting a handgun in a vehicle, and two counts of illegal possession of
a regulated firearm, Everette Schwartz, 1 appellant, presents for our review a single issue:
whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions. For the reasons that follow,
we shall affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
Mr. Schwartz was charged by indictment in circuit court case number C-24-CR-24-
001352 (hereinafter “24-1352”) with committing, on January 20, 2021, numerous offenses,
including wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun on or about his person, wearing,
carrying, and transporting a handgun in a vehicle, and illegal possession of a regulated
firearm. Mr. Schwartz was also charged by indictment in circuit court case number C-24-
CR-24-001356 (hereinafter “24-1356”) with committing, on January 28, 2021, numerous
offenses, including wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun on or about his person,
and illegal possession of a regulated firearm. At trial, the State presented evidence that at
approximately 12:23 a.m. on January 20, 2021, police officers were dispatched to the 1900
block of North Chester Street in response to a call for a possible shooting. At that location,
officers discovered Tavaughn Anderson, who was sitting in the driver’s seat of a Dodge
Charger and had suffered gunshot wounds. 	Mr. Anderson was transported to Johns
Hopkins Hospital, where he was pronounced deceased. 	A crime laboratory technician
subsequently responded to the 1700 block of North Chester Street, where she discovered
1 Mr. Schwartz is also 	identified in the record as “Everett 	Schwartz”. 	For
consistency, we shall identify him as “Mr. Schwartz.”

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
2
ten .40 caliber cartridge cases. 	A detective reviewed video footage recorded by nearby
“CCTV” cameras and observed an Acura MDX “turning from North Avenue, making a
right, [and] going south on Chester” Street “toward [Mr. Anderson’s] vehicle.” The Acura
“had a sunroof,” “running boards,” “silver on top of [the] running boards,” and a “tag” that
“was kind of over . . . to the right” of the vehicle instead of “dead in the middle.” The State
played the CCTV footage for the jury.
On the evening of January 28, 2021, Clifford Davenport was driving his gold Acura
on Wilkens Avenue when a car with tinted windows stopped in front of him. 	Mr.
Davenport exited his Acura, walked toward the car, and “had words” with the driver, who
was a Caucasian male wearing a mask. When Mr. Davenport walked back to his car, he
heard shots, and was struck in his side. Mr. Davenport was transported to Shock Trauma,
where he told a detective that the shooting occurred in the 1700 block of Wilkens Avenue.
At that location, police officers discovered ten .40 caliber cartridge cases. 	Officers
subsequently “examined [a] CityWatch camera and were able to identify vehicles that were
involved.” The officers also “conducted what is called a license plate reader area search,”
and obtained a video recording made by a surveillance camera located at 1647 Wilkens
Avenue. On the recordings, a detective observed “a silver . . . Acura MDX” with “a license
plate . . . mounted . . . slightly down and to the right.” The Acura also had “heavy dents”
and “chrome and black running boards[] or side steps,” and the side windows “appear[ed]
to be heavily tinted.” 	Using the license plate readers, the officers “were able to find a
vehicle that matched the suspect vehicle’s description,” specifically “an Acura MDX

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
3
bearing a license plate of 1EL8169.” 	Through “various databases[] like the MVA,” the
officers determined that the registered owner of the Acura was Mr. Schwartz.
On January 29, 2021, Madison Shertinger was driving on Patapsco Avenue when
she saw a four-door silver sedan that had flipped onto its hood. Ms. Shertinger also saw a
Caucasian male “leaving the scene where the car was.” Police officers went to the site of
the vehicle and discovered that it was an Acura MDX with the same license plate number
as the Acura owned by Mr. Schwartz. A crime laboratory technician processed the vehicle
and discovered, on the inside of the front driver’s side door, a cell phone. 	Officers also
discovered 	documents 	bearing 	Mr. 	Schwartz’s 	name. 	Mr. 	Schwartz 	subsequently
contacted police and “reported a robbery shortly after . . . the vehicle accident.” 	Mr.
Schwartz stated that his phone number was 443/488-1945, and that his address was 3815
St. Margaret Street. 	After officers completed the search of the Acura, they released the
vehicle to Mr. Schwartz.
The cell phone was subsequently analyzed by Federal Bureau of Investigation
Special Agent Michael Fowler, who was admitted at trial as an expert in “the field of
historical cell site analysis.” 	Agent Fowler testified that he analyzed data related to the
phone number provided by Mr. Schwartz and issued a report. 	In the report, the agent
determined that at 10:41 p.m. on January 19, 2021, the number was used to make an
outgoing call that utilized a cellular tower northeast of 1700 North Chester Street. At 12:31
a.m. on January 20, 2021, the number was used to make an outgoing call that utilized a
cellular tower west of that address. 	The number was subsequently used to make two
outgoing calls that utilized a cellular tower southwest of that address. Agent Fowler further

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
4
determined that at 6:54 p.m. on January 28, 2021, the number received an incoming call
that utilized a cellular tower northeast of 1700 Wilkens Avenue. At 10:54 p.m., the number
was used to make an outgoing call that utilized a cellular tower just west of that address.
The number was subsequently used to make five outgoing calls that utilized cellular towers
near 3815 St. Margaret Street.
The State also called two experts in “the field of firearms examination, analysis[,]
comparison[,] and identifying.” The first expert testified that the cartridge cases recovered
on Chester Street “had marks that were consistent with having been fired with the same
unknown firearm,” and that the cartridge cases recovered on Wilkens Avenue “were
identified as having marks that were consistent as having been fired with the same
unknown firearm.” 	The second expert testified that the cartridge cases recovered on
Chester Street and Wilkens Avenue “were consistent with having been fired by a particular,
by the same unknown firearm.” 	The parties subsequently stipulated that Mr. Schwartz
“was previously convicted of a crime that disqualified him from possessing a regulated
firearm on January 20th of 2021 and January 28th of 2021, under Maryland law.”
Following the close of the State’s case, defense counsel moved for judgment of
acquittal, stating:
[B]eginning with the . . . case ending in 1352, . . . which is also the – the first
in time, that’s the January 20th, 2021 case, . . . now being in the light most
favorable to the State, I will submit . . . on that motion at this time.
* * *
[N]ow moving on to . . . the case ending in 1356, which is the . . . January
28th, 2021, . . . incident, which . . . does not contain the . . . correct location,

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
5
. . . I would move for judgment of acquittal[.] . . . I’ll submit with regard to
. . . Counts 1 and 2 and 4 through 6.
[W]ith regard to Count 3, . . . attempted robbery, even in the light most
favorable to the State, there’s been no evidence . . . presented, suggested or
anything of that nature that there was any sort of attempted robbery with
regard to . . . Mr. Davenport, . . . so we would move for . . . judgment of
acquittal with regard to Count 3, again, submitting on Counts 1, 2, 4 through
6.
The court granted the motion with respect to the count of attempted robbery, and denied
the motion with respect to the remaining counts.
Following the close of the evidence, defense counsel renewed his motion for
judgment of acquittal, stating:
[A]t the end of our case our position is that . . . no rational trier of fact could
find . . . beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Schwartz . . . guilty of these charges.
[I]n . . . the case ending in 1352, . . . as well as in the . . . case ending
in . . . 1356, given the . . . lack of direct evidence, . . . no eyewitnesses, no
specific video or anyone identifying specifically . . . Mr. Schwartz to . . .
either of these cases, so we would move for judgment of acquittal based on
that, [Y]our Honor.
The court denied the motion.
Following closing arguments, the jury convicted Mr. Schwartz in case number 24-
1352 of wearing, carrying, and transporting a handgun on or about his person, wearing,
carrying, and transporting a handgun in a vehicle, and illegal possession of a regulated
firearm. In case number 24-1356, the jury convicted Mr. Schwartz of wearing, carrying,
and transporting a handgun on or about his person, and illegal possession of a regulated
firearm.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
6
Mr. Schwartz contends that, for numerous reasons, the evidence is insufficient to
sustain the convictions. The State counters that Mr. Schwartz’s “claim of error is waived.”
Alternatively, the State contends that the court “correctly denied Mr. Schwartz’s motion
for a judgment of acquittal.”
We first conclude that some of Mr. Schwartz’s arguments in support of his
contention are not preserved for our review. 	Rule 4-324(a) states that in moving for
judgment of acquittal, a “defendant shall state with particularity all reasons why the motion
should be granted.” 	Here, defense counsel stated with particularity only that the State
failed to produce “direct evidence, . . . eyewitnesses, . . . specific video[,] or anyone
identifying specifically . . . Mr. Schwartz.” 	Defense counsel did not make any other
arguments, and hence, we shall not reach any arguments made for the first time in Mr.
Schwartz’s briefs.
We further conclude that Mr. Schwartz’s contention is without merit. The Supreme
Court of Maryland has long held that “generally, proof of guilt based in whole or in part
on circumstantial evidence is no different from proof of guilt based on direct eyewitness
accounts.” 	State v. Smith, 374 Md. 527, 534 (2003) (citation omitted). 	Here, the State
produced evidence that an Acura MDX resembling one later determined to be owned by
Mr. Schwartz was observed, on CCTV footage, in the area of the January 20, 2021 shooting
of Mr. Anderson. 	The Acura was later observed, on CCTV footage, in the area of the
January 28, 2021 shooting of Mr. Davenport. The Acura located near the shooting of Mr.
Davenport bore a license plate identical to that found on Mr. Schwartz’s Acura. Cartridge
casings discovered at the sites of the shootings were determined to be consistent with

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
7
having been fired by the same firearm. 	Agent Fowler determined that Mr. Schwartz’s
phone number was used in the area of the shooting of Mr. Anderson at the time that it
occurred, and in the area of the shooting of Mr. Davenport at the time that it occurred.
Agent Fowler further determined that following the shooting of Mr. Davenport, the number
was used in the area of Mr. Schwartz’s address. From this evidence, a rational trier of fact
could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schwartz wore, carried, transported,
and possessed the firearm used in the shootings of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Davenport and
that fired the cartridge casings discovered at the sites of the shootings, and hence, the
evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions.
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR 	BALTIMORE 	CITY 	AFFIRMED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.