Criminal law — Sufficiency of the evidence — Possession with intent to distribute heroin
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, D’Andre Anderson, appellant, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute heroin, possession of heroin, conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to possess heroin. Anderson’s sole claim on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. He concedes that this claim is not preserved because his defense counsel did not provide any specific reasons in support of his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Peters v. State, 224 Md. App. 306, 354 (2015) (“[R]eview of a claim of insufficiency is available only for the reasons given by [the defendant] in his motion for judgment of acquittal.” (citation omitted)). Therefore, relying on Testerman v. State, 170 Md. App. 324 (2006), Anderson asks us to conclude that his defense counsel’s failure to preserve the issue constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.