Carter v. State

Decision Date29 August 2018
Docket NumberDocket No. 54,Docket No. 56,Docket No. 55
PartiesDANIEL CARTER v. STATE OF MARYLAND JAMES E. BOWIE v. STATE OF MARYLAND MATTHEW TIMOTHY MCCULLOUGH v. STATE OF MARYLAND
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Criminal Procedure - Constitutional Law - Sentencing - Parole - Juvenile Offenders - Life Sentences. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender and requires that a sentence of a juvenile offender include a "meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation," unless the juvenile offender has been convicted of homicide and has been determined to be incorrigible in an individualized sentencing proceeding. A system of parole that confers unfettered discretion to deny parole to such an offender does not comply with the Eighth Amendment. The life sentences imposed on Daniel Carter, who had been convicted of homicide, and James Bowie, who had been convicted of non-homicide offenses, comply with the constitutional requirements because the Maryland law governing those sentences incorporates the Eighth Amendment standards. The statute and regulations governing parole in Maryland require the Parole Commission to take into account a variety of factors that include demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation in making recommendations to the Governor concerning the parole of juvenile offenders serving life sentences. An executive order issued by the Governor provides that the Governor will consider those same factors in deciding whether to parole such an inmate and will issue a written explanation of the decision.

Criminal Procedure - Constitutional Law - Sentencing - Parole - Juvenile Offenders - Sentences for Terms of Years. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender who has not committed homicide. An aggregate sentence of 100 years, comprised of maximum sentences run consecutively for four assault convictions related to the same incident, under which the juvenile offender would become eligible for parole in 50 years, was equivalent to a sentence of life without parole. Accordingly, the defendant must be re-sentenced to a sentence that allows a "meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 198265028

Circuit Court for Charles County

Case No. 08-K-96-000119

Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case No. 03-K-04-001787

Barbera, C.J. Greene Adkins McDonald Watts Hotten Getty, JJ.

Opinion by McDonald, J.

Barbera, C.J., Greene and Adkins, JJ., dissent in Nos. 54 and 55;

Watts and Getty, JJ., dissent in No. 56.

It has been said that "mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty."1 A sentence of life in prison without parole may be just for certain adult offenders, but the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishments precludes that sentence for a juvenile offender unless the defendant is an incorrigible murderer. Although there need not be a guarantee of release on parole, a sentence imposed on a juvenile offender must provide "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."2

In this opinion, we consider three cases involving crimes that were committed when each Petitioner was a juvenile.3 None of the sentences imposed in these cases was explicitly "life without parole." In two cases, the Petitioners were sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. In the third case, the Petitioner was sentenced to 100 years incarceration and will not be eligible for parole until he has served approximately 50 years in custody. Each Petitioner asserts that he is effectively serving a sentence of life without parole, because the laws governing parole in Maryland do not provide him with a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." They have each filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

With respect to the two Petitioners serving life sentences, we hold that their sentences are legal as the laws governing parole of inmates serving life sentences in Maryland, including the parole statute, regulations, and a recent executive order adopted by the Governor, on their face allow a juvenile offender serving a life sentence a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."4 We express no opinion as to whether those laws have been, or will be, carried out legally, as that issue is not before us and may be litigated in the future. With respect to the Petitioner who is serving a 100-year sentence, we hold that the sentence is effectively a sentence of life without parole violative of the Eighth Amendment and that the Petitioner is entitled to be re-sentenced to a legal sentence.5

IBackground

As a predicate to explaining our decisions in these case, we first outline the constitutional limits on the punishment of juveniles recognized in recent Supreme Court decisions, then summarize the laws governing parole and executive clemency in Maryland, and finally describe the facts and procedural histories of the three cases before us.

A. Constitutional Limits on the Punishment of Juvenile Offenders

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." That prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962). The Maryland Constitution contains similar proscriptions. See Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 16 ("no Law to inflict cruel and unusual pains and penalties ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter."), Article 25 ("cruel or unusual punishment [ought not to be] inflicted, by the Courts of Law").6

1. Recent Supreme Court Decisions Applicable to Juvenile Offenders

During the past 15 years, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions in which it held that the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution places limits on the sentencing of juvenile offenders that do not apply to the sentencing of adult offenders. In particular, the Court has held that the Eighth Amendment bars imposition of the death penalty and severely restricts the imposition of a sentence of life without parole.

Juvenile offenders may not be sentenced to the death penalty (Roper v. Simmons)

In 2005, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment's proscription against "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibits the imposition of the death penalty against adefendant who committed the offense as a juvenile - i.e., when the defendant was less than 18 years old. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

In its opinion, the Court first identified a developing consensus among the states that suggested that "the evolving standards of decency" were against the imposition of the death penalty when the offender was under the age of 18. 543 U.S. at 561, 564-75. The Court found the basis for this consensus in well accepted differences between juveniles and adults. It stated that the death penalty is reserved for the worst offenders, and that several characteristics of juveniles make it difficult to reliably say whether a juvenile offender belongs in that category.

The Court identified the following characteristics of juveniles: (1) juveniles lack maturity, leading to "an underdeveloped sense of responsibility," as well as "impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions"; (2) juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and peer pressure due, in part, to juveniles having less control over their environment or freedom "to extricate themselves from a criminogenic setting"; (3) the personality of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult, and their traits are more transitory and less fixed. 543 U.S. at 569-70 (internal quotations and citations omitted). In light of these characteristics, the usual sentencing justifications for the death penalty - retribution and deterrence - did not provide adequate justification for imposing the death penalty against juvenile offenders. Id. at 571-72.

The Court concluded that the differences between juveniles and adults "are too marked and well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability." The confluence of these factors led the Supreme Court toadopt a categorical prohibition against the imposition of the death penalty against juvenile offenders. 543 U.S. at 572-73.

Juvenile non-homicide offenders may not be sentenced to life without parole (Graham v. Florida)

Five years later, the Supreme Court extended the reasoning of Roper to overturn the sentence of a juvenile offender sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.7 Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). In contrast to its decision in Roper, the Court did not conclude that this punishment was unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders. Rather, the Court drew a distinction between juveniles convicted of homicide and those who had been convicted of other offenses, and held that a sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment when imposed on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide. 560 U.S. at 82.

The Court first considered whether there were "indicia of a national consensus" on the subject. After reviewing various statistics on state laws concerning juvenile sentencing and actual practice, the Court concluded that "life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes is as rare as other sentencing practices found to be cruel and unusual." 560 U.S. at 66. The Court then considered whether the challenged practice serves legitimate penological goals. The Court reiterated its analysis in Roper that juveniles have "lessened culpability" in comparison to adults. It also distinguishedbetween homicide and non-homicide offenders,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT