Cheatham, Sakeena v. State

Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case No. C-24-CR-25-002690
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 998
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
SAKEENA CHEATHAM
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 15, 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 the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of possession of cocaine, Sakeena
Cheatham, appellant, presents for our review a single issue: 	whether the evidence is
insufficient to sustain the conviction. 	For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the
judgment of the circuit court.
At trial, the State called Baltimore Police Officer Ronald Ulmer, who testified that
at approximately 6:10 a.m. on May 6, 2025, he received and responded to a call for
“disorderly.” 	Officer Ulmer subsequently “observed a female,” whom the officer
identified in court as Ms. Cheatham, “walking out of 2127 West Baltimore Street” and
“screaming pretty loud.” Officer Ulmer identified Ms. Cheatham, “[r]an it through KGA,”
and discovered “[t]hat she was coming back with a possible warrant.” After “the warrant
was confirmed[,] Ms. Cheatham was placed under arrest, and [the officer] called for [a]
female unit to come to the scene to do a female search.” 	A female officer subsequently
searched Ms. Cheatham and discovered, in her “right front pants pocket,” a “clear plastic
bag” containing “a white rock substance.” Officer Ulmer recovered the bag “and submitted
it” to “Evidence Control.” 	The officer identified, and the State entered into evidence, a
“receipt that you get [when] submitting property to Evidence Control,” which reflects a
“complaint number” of 250501721 and “property number” of 5076783.
During cross-examination, the following colloquy occurred:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL: Y]ou testified on direct that it was not you
that searched Ms. Cheatham, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Right.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] It was Officer Wyatt[-]Pierce, correct.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
2
* * *
[OFFICER ULMER:] Yes.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And when she first found the object she –
there were multiple of you around, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And you saw what it was?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Yes.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And then she put it on the ground, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And then she handed it to another officer,
well, sorry, rather she picked it up and put her glove around it, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] She picked it up. She – when she – when she
searched her, the bag fell to the ground. I was standing right there watching
it. And at that time I think I asked who had a glove so that I could recover
the property.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] 	And then Officer Wyatt[-]Pierce reached
down with her – her gloved hand and wrapped it around the object, correct?
* * *
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct. Correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] 	Okay, thank you. 	And she then tied her
glove around the object, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] 	And then she handed it to another officer
on scene, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] I – I don’t remember that.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
3
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Would reviewing your body camera refresh
your recollection?
[OFFICER ULMER:] 	Yeah. 	If I reviewed the body-worn camera,
yes.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: May I approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(Counsel approached the witness[.])
(Pause in proceedings.)
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] The seizing officer, Officer Wyatt[-]Pierce,
she put the item on the ground, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Right.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] 	And it was not immediately picked up,
correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] You – you engaged with conversation with
Ms. Cheatham for – for a bit about – about the item, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct.
[DEFENSE 	COUNSEL:] 	And 	so 	it 	was 	not 	until 	after 	that
conversation had finished that anyone picked the alleged CDS off the ground,
correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] 	Okay. 	And Officer, you said that you
observed the seizing Officer Wyatt[-]Pierce recover the item. 	Do you
remember where the officer recovered the item from?
[OFFICER ULMER:] 	I don’t understand what – what you mean by
that question.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
4
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] So, [the prosecutor] asked you whether you
observed Officer Wyatt[-]Pierce search Ms. Cheatham, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And that you said you – you did watch the
search, correct?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Correct.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] 	And where did Officer Wyatt[-]Pierce
seize the alleged CDS from? [W]here – where – where did she find it?
[OFFICER ULMER:] 	Right next to Cheatham, where she was
standing. Ms. Cheatham.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] So, I’m sorry. Where exactly was that?
[OFFICER ULMER:] She was – as she was standing there, she – the
item fell like right next to her.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] It fell?
[OFFICER ULMER:] Yeah.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Okay.
[OFFICER ULMER:] But she put it on the ground, whatever it was,
it was on the ground right next to her.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] 	So you observed something fall and then
Officer Wyatt[-]Pierce pick it up or?
[OFFICER ULMER:] I – I observed it coming out of her pocket.
During redirect examination, Officer Ulmer confirmed that when Officer Wyatt-
Pierce “was searching [Ms. Cheatham] and found CDS,” he “watch[ed] that whole entire
interaction.” The State also played for the court the video recording of the interaction made
by Officer Ulmer’s body-worn camera. 	The recording depicts Officer Wyatt-Pierce

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
5
removing an object from the pocket of Ms. Cheatham’s pants, displaying it to Officer
Ulmer’s camera, bending down toward the sidewalk, and continuing the search. 	Officer
Ulmer confirmed that when Officer Wyatt-Pierce “recovered the CDS,” it was “in [his]
line of sight the entire time,” and “once [he was] handed the CDS,” it “was in [his]
possession the whole time [until he] submitted it.”
The State also called Baltimore Police forensic scientist Jacqueline Tanczos, who
confirmed that she tested “CDS” with “case number 25051721” and property number
5076783. 	Ms. Tanczos identified, and the State entered into evidence, her laboratory
report, which bears a case number of 250501721. 	In the report, Ms. Tanczos stated that
she analyzed a “[b]lack ziplock bag containing white rock-like material,” and that the bag
had an “Evidence ID” number of 5076783. Ms. Tanczos further stated that she determined
the material to be cocaine. 	When the prosecutor asked Ms. Tanczos from where she
obtained “the evidence in this case,” she testified:
After the officer has dropped it off in our Evidence Control Unit, then once
a request is made by the officer or a state’s attorney or federal agency, you
know, whenever we get a request to analyze this evidence, it is then brought
up from Evidence Control to our unit and then placed into our drug vault.
And then once that case is then randomly assigned to an analyst, then they
would go and get the case, put it into their custody. And then once the case
is completed, return it to the vault. And then once the case is approved and
the report is issued, then it’s brought back to Evidence Control.
During cross-examination, the following colloquy occurred:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL: W]hen you retrieved what you tested in this
case, did you – what did it look like?
[MS. TANCZOS:] It was in a signed and sealed matter. If it was in
an – if it did – was not signed or did not – was not in a sealed matter, I
would’ve attached a form that would’ve stated such.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
6
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] The item itself, that wasn’t – the item itself
look like?
[MS. TANCZOS:] 	I described it as a black Ziploc bag containing
white rocklike material.
[DEFENSE 	COUNSEL:] 	Okay. 	And 	did 	it 	come 	with 	any
documentation 	of 	what 	the 	item 	looked 	like 	when 	it 	was 	originally
recovered?
[MS. TANCZOS:] 	We usually receive a photograph of when the
officer takes a photo of the evidence whenever he gets to the building in order
to invoice it. But I don’t know what it looked like prior to that photo being
taken.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Did you witness that photograph?
[MS. TANCZOS:] I did not. I just –
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] 	In this matter, did this evidence contain a
photograph of what the item looked like when the officer submitted it?
[MS. TANCZOS:] It was attached to the evidence.
Ms. Cheatham contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction
“because no rational trier of fact could find that the suspected cocaine recovered from [her]
pocket is what Ms. Tanczos tested and identified as cocaine, and thus, that Ms. Cheatham
indeed possessed a controlled dangerous substance.” We disagree. The Supreme Court of
Maryland has stated that when the State “must establish a proper chain of custody that
negates a reasonable probability of alteration or tampering,” “Rule 5-901 requires only that
there be sufficient authentication as a condition precedent to the admissibility of the
evidence[] that satisfies a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be.” Wheeler v.
State, 459 Md. 555, 569 (2018). 	Here, Officer Ulmer testified that he watched Officer

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
7
Wyatt-Pierce remove from Ms. Cheatham’s pocket a “clear plastic bag” containing “a
white rock substance,” and the removal was recorded by Officer Ulmer’s body-worn
camera. 	Officer Ulmer also testified that although Officer Wyatt-Pierce subsequently
placed the bag “on the ground,” or the bag “fell to the ground,” he watched the “entire
interaction,” and the bag was in his “line of sight the entire time.” Officer Ulmer further
testified that “once [he] was handed the” bag, it “was in [his] possession the whole time”
until he submitted it to “Evidence Control.” 	The receipt subsequently given to Officer
Ulmer and Ms. Tanczos’s laboratory report bear the same complaint and property numbers.
Ms. Tanczos explained how evidence is handled following its submission to Evidence
Control, and that had the evidence not been “signed and sealed,” she would have “attached
a form that . . . stated such.” Finally, Ms. Tanczos testified that “a photograph of what the
item looked like when [Officer Ulmer] submitted it” was “attached to the evidence.” This
testimony was sufficient to satisfy a finding that the cocaine tested by Ms. Tanczos was the
same cocaine seized from Ms. Cheatham by Officer Wyatt-Pierce, and hence, the evidence
is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR 	BALTIMORE 	CITY 	AFFIRMED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.