Jackson v. State, 96
Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Writing for the Court | CATHELL. |
Citation | 772 A.2d 273,364 Md. 192 |
Parties | Valentino Maurice JACKSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
Docket Number | No. 96,96 |
Decision Date | 11 May 2001 |
772 A.2d 273
364 Md. 192
v.
STATE of Maryland
No. 96, Sept. Term, 2000.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
May 11, 2001.
Steven L. Holcomb, Jr., Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., of Maryland, on brief) Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
CATHELL, Judge.
This case calls into question the appropriateness of comments made by a trial judge during the sentencing phase of a criminal proceeding. On May 5, 1999, following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Valentino Maurice Jackson, petitioner, was convicted of first degree assault, second degree assault, reckless endangerment, and unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun. On August 16, 1999, the trial judge imposed a total sentence of eighteen years in the Division of Corrections. In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment.1 Pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-303, petitioner presented one issue for which we granted certiorari:
Did the trial court's comments at sentencing that people moved to Howard County to get away from people like Petitioner, who come to Howard County from Baltimore City and act like they are animals living in the jungle, exceed the outer limit of the judge's broad discretion in sentencing and amount to impermissible sentencing criteria?2
We answer petitioner's question in the affirmative. We hold that the trial court's comments at sentencing exceeded the outer limit of a judge's broad discretion in sentencing and therefore amounted to the application of impermissible sentencing criteria. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Special Appeals and remand the case to that court with instructions to vacate the sentence of the Circuit Court for Howard County and to remand
Facts
The victim of the assault in the underlying case is named Mitchell Woods (Woods). He is a self-confessed drug dealer who both resides and conducts his illicit business in Howard County. Apparently, petitioner or members of his family were among Woods's customers. Woods testified that at approximately 1:00 a.m. on July 12, 1998, petitioner came to Woods's townhouse at 5593 Cedar Lane in Columbia, Maryland3 to purchase cocaine. Woods refused to sell petitioner any drugs because he alleged that petitioner owed him money, apparently from previous drug sales. Petitioner became angry, and a brief verbal altercation took place between the two men after which petitioner left Woods's townhouse.
According to Woods' testimony, approximately two hours later, at 3:30 a.m., he and his friend, Corey Drain, were standing in the parking area in front of his townhouse when petitioner drove up in an automobile and called out Woods's name. Petitioner then exited the vehicle and confronted Woods with a short-barreled shotgun. When petitioner pointed the shotgun at him, Woods stopped walking towards the car and tried to convince petitioner to put the shotgun down by telling him that there were police in the area. Woods further testified that at this time, the police came upon the incident and arrested petitioner.
Officer Daniel Boehler of the Howard County Police Department testified that he was in the area responding to a domestic call when he noticed petitioner standing in the parking lot pointing a shotgun at Woods. The officer drew his weapon on petitioner and ordered him to place the weapon on the ground, back away from it, and keep his hands where the officer could see them. Petitioner followed the officer's orders and was subsequently arrested. The shotgun was confiscated and upon inspection was found to have been loaded with two rounds.
On May 5, 1999, following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Howard County, petitioner was convicted of first degree assault, second degree assault, reckless endangerment, and unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun. On August 16, 1999, the trial judge imposed a total sentence of eighteen years imprisonment.4 In imposing sentence, the judge stated:
THE COURT: Well, this case was very well prepared and very well presented by both sides. Mr. Tauber did his very best. Convinced the jury that Mr. Jackson was not carrying a weapon openly with intent to injure. He was found not guilty of that charge. He was found guilty of first degree assault, second degree assault, reckless endangerment and possessing an unlawful short-barreled shotgun. And I agree that Mr. Woods is no bargain. Now, unfortunately, a number of communities in the lovely city of Columbia have attracted a large number of rotten apples. Unfortunately, most of them came from the
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Your Honor, I was never trying to hurt anyone. But my families was, uh, my family was attacked and all I was trying to do was help and do something. To stop it from going to where it went. And now my brother's away recovering, thank God. Like you said, (unintelligible) for a year. And I'm the one looking at the time. I was the middle person. (Unintelligible) I mean—
THE COURT: Well, you worked hard to be a bad person and you accomplished it. Civilized people are not on the roads at 3:30 in the morning, confronting other people with sawed-off shotguns. Civilized people don't own sawed-off shotguns. Only criminals. Only criminals looking for no good, that's why a sawed-off shotgun. So, I mean, what can I say? [Emphasis added.]
In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed petitioner's sentence for first degree assault and possession of a short-barreled shotgun. That court concluded:
We have reviewed the entire transcript of the sentencing hearing and find no indication, from the remarks made by the sentencing court or from any information supplied by counsel, that the court was under the impression that appellant [now petitioner] was not from Howard County. As the excerpt we have quoted reveals,6 the court made general comments about people moving to Columbia from other places, many from Baltimore City, and about how some of those people brought with them
We granted certiorari to address whether the trial court's comments at sentencing exceed the outer limit of the judge's broad discretion in sentencing and amount to impermissible sentencing criteria.
Discussion
It is well settled that "[a] judge is vested with very broad discretion in sentencing criminal defendants." Poe v. State, 341 Md. 523, 531, 671 A.2d 501, 505 (1996); Gary v. State, 341 Md. 513, 516, 671 A.2d 495, 496 (1996); Jennings v. State, 339 Md. 675, 683, 664 A.2d 903, 907 (1995); Jones v. State, 336 Md. 255, 265, 647 A.2d 1204, 1209 (1994); Logan v. State, 289 Md. 460, 480, 425 A.2d 632, 642 (1981). However, "[a] judge should fashion a sentence based upon the facts and circumstances of the crime committed and the background of the defendant, including his or her reputation, prior offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, and social background." Poe, 341 Md. at 532, 671 A.2d at 505 (internal citation omitted). "The judge is accorded this broad latitude to best accomplish the objectives of sentencing—punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation." State v. Dopkowski, 325 Md. 671, 679, 602 A.2d 1185, 1189...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. State, No. 2190
...including his or her reputation, prior offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, and social background." Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 199, 772 A.2d 273 (2001) (quoting Poe v. State, 341 Md. 523, 531-32, 671 A.2d 501, 505 (1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We "must ......
-
Agurs v. State, No. 11, September Term, 2009 (Md. App. 5/19/2010), No. 11, September Term, 2009.
...raising that question. We do not consider questions on which we declined to grant certiorari review. See e.g., Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 195 n.2, 772 A.2d 273, 275 n.2 6. Unlike the majority, I am satisfied that the affidavit contains sufficient evidence of Petitioner's connection to a......
-
Walter Paul Bishop v. State, No. 2106
...by ill-will, prejudice or other impermissible considerations; and (3) whether the sentence is within statutory limits.”Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 200, 772 A.2d 273 (2001) (emphasis in original)(quoting Gary v. State, 341 Md. 513, 516, 671 A.2d 495 (1996)). Mr. Bishop argues that the tri......
-
State v. Gayton, No. 2013AP646–CR.
...(concluding it is improper to consider a defendant's status as a nonresident of the state at sentencing); see also Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 772 A.2d 273, 282 (2001) (stating that a defendant's geographical origins “would clearly be an improper factor upon which to base a defendant's s......
-
Walter Paul Bishop v. State, 2106
...by ill-will, prejudice or other impermissible considerations; and (3) whether the sentence is within statutory limits.”Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 200, 772 A.2d 273 (2001) (emphasis in original)(quoting Gary v. State, 341 Md. 513, 516, 671 A.2d 495 (1996)). Mr. Bishop argues that the tri......
-
Khalifa v. State, 133
...upon findings consistent with the jury's verdict. See Triggs v. State, 382 Md. 27, 39, 852 A.2d 114, 122 (2004) (citing Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 199, 772 A.2d 273, 277 (2001)); see also Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, at ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403, at ___, 2004 WL 14026......
-
Roary v. State, 25
...of the record we hold that the trial court did not consider impermissible sentencing criteria in the instant case. In Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 772 A.2d 273 (2001), Judge Cathell, writing for this Court, summarized our standard for reviewing a criminal It is well settled that "[a] judg......
-
Taylor v. State, 2190, Sept. Term, 2016
...including his or her reputation, prior offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, and social background." Jackson v. State , 364 Md. 192, 199, 772 A.2d 273 (2001) (quoting Poe v. State , 341 Md. 523, 531–32, 671 A.2d 501, 505 (1996) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). 236 Md......