Evans v. State
Decision Date | 23 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 78 Sept. Term 2003.,78 Sept. Term 2003. |
Citation | 855 A.2d 291,382 Md. 248 |
Parties | Vernon EVANS, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
A. Stephen Hut, Jr. (Todd Zubler, Kalea Seitz Clark and Catherine M. Grosso of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; Jeffrey B. O'Toole and Julie S. Dietrich of O'Toole, Rothwell, Nassau & Steinbach, on brief), Washington, DC, for appellant.
Annabelle L. Lisic, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, on brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE, (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
The appellant, Vernon Evans, Jr., admittedly participated in the contract murders of David Scott Piechowicz and Susan Kennedy on April 28, 1983, in the Warren House Motel located in Baltimore County, Maryland. Evans was convicted of first degree murder of both victims, and he is presently under sentences of death. This Court has, on eight prior occasions, rejected Evans's challenges to his prosecution, convictions, and sentences.1
In the present case, the ninth time he has been before this Court, Evans argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing on either of two grounds. First, he contends that allegedly newly discovered evidence would show "that he was not the shooter and therefore not eligible for the death penalty." (Appellant's brief at 11). Second, Evans argues that the trial judge's application, at his sentencing hearing, of an amendment to the Maryland death penalty statute regarding mitigating circumstances, which amendment became effective a few months after the murders, violated the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Maryland constitutions.2 We shall reject both of Evans's arguments.
Some basic facts underlying the prosecution were summarized by this Court in Evans v. State, 304 Md. 487, 494-496, 499 A.2d 1261, 1264-1265 (1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1010, 106 S.Ct. 3310, 92 L.Ed.2d 722 (1986), as follows:
Additional factual detail was set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Evans v. Smith, 220 F.3d 306, 310 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 925, 121 S.Ct. 1367, 149 L.Ed.2d 294 (2001), as follows:
In a proceeding under the Maryland Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act, now codified as Maryland Code (2001), §§ 7-101 through 7-301 of the Criminal Procedure Article, the Circuit Court for Worcester County on March 28, 1991, vacated Evans's death sentences on the authority of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), and ordered a new capital sentencing proceeding. The Circuit Court refused, however, to vacate the guilty verdicts. This Court on June 4, 1991, denied both the State's and Evans's applications for leave to appeal.
Upon Evans's request for removal, the new sentencing proceeding was removed from the Circuit Court for Worcester County back to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. At his resentencing hearing in 1992, Evans conceded that he was involved in the murders, although not as the "triggerman." During his allocution, "Evans apologized ... for causing pain to the victims' families, ... for being `involved in this hideous crime,' ... and for allowing his drug-ridden life to twist him into `the type of individual that would take two innocent lives'" (appellant's reply brief at 2). Evans's counsel at the 1992 sentencing hearing "conceded that the jury should check the box on the verdict sheet, indicating that Evans had been a principal in the first degree." Defense counsel "emphasized mitigation" and "argued that life imprisonment, rather than death, was the appropriate punishment." Evans v. Smith, 54 F.Supp.2d 503, 516 and n. 26 (D.Md.1999), affirmed, Evans v. Smith, supra, 220 F.3d 306.
At the conclusion of the 1992 resentencing proceeding, the jury determined again that Evans should receive two death sentences, and this Court affirmed. Evans v. State, 333 Md. 660, 637 A.2d 117, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 833, 115 S.Ct. 109, 130 L.Ed.2d 56 (1994).
The present case began when Evans filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County a motion for a new trial based on allegedly newly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs.
...(citations omitted); Khalifa v. State, 382 Md. 400, 425, 855 A.2d 1175, 1189 (2004) (citations omitted); Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 280 n. 13, 855 A.2d 291, 310 n. 13 (2004) (citations omitted). We have indicated, however, that this Court will not always limit the protection provided by A......
-
Hoile v. State
...only "where there is some illegality in the sentence itself or where no sentence should have been imposed." Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 278, 855 A.2d 291, 309 (2004). Language in Evans stating that a sentence is illegal "where no sentence should have been imposed" is inapplicable to the co......
-
Grandison v. State
...on a person convicted of conspiracy to murder. The State argues that this Court should be guided by its opinion in Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 855 A.2d 291 (2004), in denying Grandison's claims. According to the State, because Evans presented nearly identical evidence and it was subject to......
-
Nelson v. State
...offense or the sentence is not a permitted one...." See also Hoile v. State, 404 Md. 591, 621, 948 A.2d 30 (2008); Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 278, 855 A.2d 291 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1150, 125 S.Ct. 1325, 161 L.Ed.2d 113 (2005). Moreover, a claim of an illegal sentence "`should or......
-
Sentencing Motions
...as an illegal sentence at any time. An illegal sentence may also be raised on direct appeal or in collateral review. See Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 278-79 (2004); Ridgeway v. State, 369 Md. 165, 171 (2002); Moosavi v. State, 355 Md. 651, 662-63 (1999). Even if a defendant consents to a se......
-
Prohibition Against Ex Post Facto Laws
...v. Demby, 390 Md. 580, 608 (2006) (citations omitted); Khalifa v. State, 382 Md. 400, 425 (2004 (citations omitted); Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 280 n.13 (2004) (citations omitted). We have indicated, however, that this Court will not always limit the protection provided by Article 17 to t......
-
Motion for A New Trial Based On Newly Discovered Evidence
...the newly discovered evidence been available. Argyrou, 349 Md. at 600-01; Yorke v. State, 315 Md. 578, 587-88 (1989); cf. Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 264-72 (2004) (no substantial or significant possibility of a different verdict because no newly discovered evidence that the defendant was ......