Bowers v. State

WRIGHT, J. Following a guilty plea in the Circuit Court for Somerset County on March 13, 2013, appellant, Jonathan Eugene Bowers, was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration for one count of involuntary manslaughter. 1 On December 10, 2014, Bowers filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Md. Rule 4-345 arguing that because the manslaughter sentencing statute, Md.Code (2002, 2012, RepLVol.), Criminal Law Article (“CR”) § 2-207, is ambiguous, he is subject to the rule of lenity which requires that CR § 2-207 be read in his favor. In this case, Bowers asserts that CR § 2-207 should be read as imposing two separate maximum sentences for voluntary and involuntary manslaughter; since he is convicted of involuntary manslaughter, he argues he should be subject to a maximum of 2 years in a local facility and, therefore, his 10-year sentence is illegal. Bowers’s motion was denied by the circuit court on January 20, 2015. This appeal follows.

On appeal, Bowers presents the following question for our review: 2 ³¹³ Did the circuit court properly deny Bowers’s motion to correct an illegal sentence? After a careful consideration of Maryland criminal law cases, authority, and legislative history, we hold that Bowers’s 10-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter is not illegal. BACKGROUND On October 27, 2012, at approximately 3:52 a.m., officers from the Somerset County Sheriffs Department responded to a report of an unconscious individual. When they arrived, the officers saw Bowers seated on the side of the road with his hands in the air.

The unconscious individual was Bowers’s father, Jonathan David Bowers. The senior Bowers was lying motionless and bleeding from his face. When the officers returned to Bowers, he had his hands in the air, and said “he and his father [ ] were arguing and they had gotten into a fight and it happened real fast.” Witnesses on the scene reported that Bowers and his father were seen arguing earlier in the evening, and that later on, during the altercation, Bowers repeatedly kicked his father, uttering “in a distressed, emotional state that he hoped [his father] was dead.” Bowers was escorted to the officers’ patrol unit in handcuffs. Approximately an hour later, Bowers’s father was pronounced dead from “head and neck injuries as a result of multiple blunt force impact.” Bowers is a former United States Marine and has completed two combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bowers suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) 3 as a result of ³¹⁴ the numerous traumatic events his experienced in combat. He contends that at the time he killed his father, he “was in a dissociated rage state for the period following the initial blows ... [and] he was not consciously aware of his actions” as a result of the PTSD. Bowers was originally indicted for first-degree murder and a series of lesser offenses. In exchange for the non-prosecution of the remaining charges, Bowers pleaded guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter.

Bowers received a 10-year sentence to be served in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. He filed this timely appeal arguing that the imposition of a 10-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter is illegal. DISCUSSION In Maryland, manslaughter remains a common law crime with a prescribed statutory penalty. State v. Gibson, 4 Md.App. 236, 241-44 , 242 A.2d 575 (1968), aff'd, 254 Md. 399 , 254 A.2d 691 (1969).

In other words, the elements for the unlawful act of manslaughter have not been defined by the legislature but remain in its common law form. 4 Moore v. ³¹⁵ State, 194 Md.App. 327, 370 , 4 A.3d 96 (2010); rev’d, on other grounds, 422 Md. 516 , 30 A.3d 945 (2011). The statutorily prescribed penalty for manslaughter is found in CR § 2-207 and provides, in pertinent part: Penalty (a) A person who commits manslaughter is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to: (1) imprisonment not exceeding 10 years; or (2) imprisonment in a local correctional facility not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $500 or both. Bowers avers that the maximum penalty he should have received under the statute should have been 2 years and, therefore, his 10-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter is illegal. He argues that because the manslaughter statute provides what he considers to be two possible maximum penalties, the language of the manslaughter statute is inherently ambiguous.

As a result of this ambiguity, Bowers argues that he is entitled to the application of the rule of lenity. 5 He urges us to adopt a construction of the statute that places the 10-year maximum penalty provision on a ³¹⁶ voluntary manslaughter conviction and the 2-year maximum penalty on an involuntary manslaughter conviction. I. Bowers did not waive his illegal sentence claim by failing to object or because he entered into a plea agreement. In response to Bowers’s appeal, the State first argues that Bowers “waived his illegal sentence claim by consenting to the terms of the plea agreement with the State.” His knowing and voluntary plea agreement for involuntary manslaughter, the State explains, required that he expressly acknowledge his understanding that “the maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter is 10 years in jail.” At sentencing, the State continues, Bowers not only failed to object to the legality of his sentencing, but he requested a sentence of up to 5 years’ imprisonment, which, while being within the sentencing guidelines, exceeds what Bowers now argues to be the “maximum” 2-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter. The State relies on Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460 , 918 A.2d 506 (2007), for the proposition that a “sentence may not be attacked belatedly and collaterally through a motion under [Md.] Rule 4-345(a), and ... the defendant is not excused from having to raise a timely objection in the trial court.” We disagree with the State and do not find that Bowers waived his appeal of his sentence.

Md. Rule 4-345(a) permits the court to “correct an illegal sentence at any time.” Thus, an appellate court “may correct an illegal sentence on appeal even if no objection was made in the trial court,” Leopold v. State, 216 Md.App. 586, 609 , 88 A.3d 860 (2014) (citations omitted), because “a defendant who fails to object to the imposition of an illegal sentence does not waive forever his right to challenge that sentence.” Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422, 427 , 488 A.2d 949 (1985) (citing Coles v. State, 290 Md. 296, 303 , 429 A.2d 1029 (1981)). Further, contrary to the State’s assertion, “a guilty plea would not alter the illegality of the sentence imposed.” Stevenson v. State, 180 Md.App. 440, 447 , 951 A.2d 875 (2008) (citations omitted). The State’s reliance on Chaney is misguided because the Chaney Court ³¹⁷ distinguished between deficient sentences and illegal sentences, limiting illegal sentences “to those situations in which the illegality inheres in the sentence itself.” Chaney, 397 Md. at 466 , 918 A.2d 506 . The Court held that deficient sentences, not illegal sentences, “may not be attacked belatedly and collaterally through a motion under [Md.] Rule 4-345(a).” Id.

In the instant matter, Bowers, by questioning the interpretation of the statute as a whole, is challenging his sentence as one whose “illegality inheres in the sentence itself,” id., and thus, he is well within his rights to challenge it on appeal.

II

Bowers’s 10-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter is not illegal. In order for Bowers to receive the benefit of the rule of lenity, the Maryland manslaughter statute must be considered ambiguous. See, e.g., Melton v. State, 379 Md. 471, 488 , 842 A.2d 743 (2004) (noting that the rule of lenity applies to “ambiguous units of prosecution and penalty provisions in criminal statutes”). If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the analysis of a statute is over.

People’s Ins. Counsel Div. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 408 Md. 336, 351 , 969 A.2d 971 (2009). A statute is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning: if it is intrinsically unclear or if its application in a particular circumstance is uncertain.

Webster v. State, 359 Md. 465, 480-81 , 754 A.2d 1004 (2000). While the rule of lenity permits an ambiguity in a criminal statute to be construed against the State and in favor of the defendant, id., the rule of lenity cannot be used to “create an ambiguity where none exists.” Jones v. State, 336 Md. 255, 261 , 647 A.2d 1204 (1994) (citations omitted). Only if the statutory language is ambiguous is this Court required to look “beyond the statute’s plain language in discerning the legislative intent.” Melton, 379 Md. at 477 , 842 A.2d 743 (citing Comptroller of the Treasury v. Clyde’s of Chevy Chase, Inc., 377 Md. 471, 483 , 833 A.2d 1014 (2003)). Bowers argues that the manslaughter statute is ambiguous “because the words of the statute are susceptible to more than one interpretation.” Webster, 359 Md. at 480 , 754 A.2d 1004 . ³¹⁸ He posits three possible interpretations of the manslaughter statute: (1) the interpretation of the circuit court judge who heard Bowers’s case and sentenced him to 10 years, that there are two possible maximum sentences; (2) that the maximum 2-year sentence is “incorporated” into the provision authorizing a 10-year sentence, citing to advocates who argue that the 2-year sentence is obsolete; and (3) that the General Assembly intended to impose different maximum sentences for voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Bowers urges us to adopt the third option: that the intent of the General Assembly in passing the manslaughter statute was to assign different penalties to the two classes of the crime. He urges us to accept his interpretation, that “the intent of [CR] § 2-207 was to impose a maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter of no more than two years and/or a fine of up to $500” (emphasis added), while the penalty for voluntary manslaughter was intended to be “imprisonment not exceeding 10 years[.]” CR § 2-207. For the reasons laid out below, we do not find Bowers’s argument persuasive. i. The Maryland manslaughter statute is not ambiguous.

In the order and memorandum opinion denying Bowers’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, the circuit court found that Bowers’s 10-year sentence was not illegal because the manslaughter statute is not ambiguous. The circuit court concluded: Defendant is mistaken. First and foremost, courts only resort to legislative materials for statutory interpretation after courts have determined that the plain language of the statute itself lends itself to at least two possible reasonable interpretations. Webster v. State, 359 Md. 465, 480 [ 754 A.2d 1004 ] (2000).

The manslaughter statute provides two possible penalties for manslaughter: up to ten (10) years in a penitentiary or up to two (2) years in a local facility and $500 fine. Md.Code Ann., Crim. Law § 2-207(a). There is nothing on the face of this statute that lends itself to two possible interpretations.

The meaning is clear. There are two possible penalties: 10 years in prison or 2 years in jail. ³¹⁹ The meaning of the statute itself is objectively clear, even if one finds the rationale, or perhaps lack thereof, behind the statute personally vexing. (Emphasis added). We agree with the circuit court’s final decision but need to take the opportunity to answer some of the questions the circuit court judge found frustrating in deciding the issue presented in this appeal.

Bowers views the statute as providing two different sentences for manslaughter that are at odds with each other. But actually, a straightforward reading of the statute shows that it merely provides sentencing options that give a sentencing court broad discretion as to whether defendant should serve the sentence in the Department of Corrections or in a local facility and for how long. The statute makes no distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter because the category of manslaughter has no bearing on the conviction or the ultimate sentence. Legal authorities have consistently interpreted the manslaughter statute to carry one penalty for a conviction of either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

Highlighting the relatively inconsequential distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, Judge Charles E. Moylan, of this Court, explains in his authoritative treatise on criminal homicide that the qualifiers “voluntary” and “involuntary” are merely descriptive terms. Charles E. Moylan, Jr., Criminal Homicide Law § 8.5, at 155-56 (2002). Because manslaughter is an implicit, lesser included offense within murder, an “indictment or criminal information on which [the defendant] stood trial will never even have mentioned the word manslaughter, let alone have made some more subtle distinction between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.” 6 Id. Even in the rare instances where manslaughter is alleged per se, the charging document “will not have made any distinction between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary ³²⁰ manslaughter.” Id.

With regard to sentencing, Judge Moylan explains: If a defendant is convicted of manslaughter in Maryland, the maximum penalty provided by the Legislature is 10 years imprisonment and there is no distinction between whether the conviction was for a voluntary manslaughter or an involuntary one. Id. Judge Moylan adds that the verdict in a manslaughter case will not, “nor should it,” have made a distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Id.

Additionally, in his widely cited authority on Maryland criminal law, Maryland Criminal Jury Instructions and Commentary, Professor David E. Aaronson elucidates the manslaughter statute. He explains: In terms of penalty, there is no distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Pursuant to [CR] § 2-207(a) (formerly art. 27, § 387), a person convicted of involuntary manslaughter or voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a felony and subject to a maximum of ten years imprisonment or imprisonment for two years and/or a maximum fine of $500. 1 David E. Aaronson, Maryland Criminal Jury Instructions and Commentary § 5.54(A), at 902 (2015) (emphasis added). Maryland courts have also affirmed the absence of any distinction in sentencing between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

In Connor v. State, 225 Md. 543 , 171 A.2d 699 (1961), the Court of Appeals reasoned that defendant Connor was not prejudiced by the circuit court’s failure to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter in the jury instruction because: the penalty statute (§ 387)[ 7 ] makes no distinction between the two, the penalty for both grades of manslaughter is the ³²¹ same; nor is there any distinction in the usual form of the possible verdicts in a homicide case ... between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Id. at 558-59, 171 A.2d 699 . After Connor, this Court considered State v. Gibson, 4 Md.App. 236, 241 , 242 A.2d 575 (1968), aff'd, 254 Md. 399 , 254 A.2d 691 (1969), in which it reiterated that “manslaughter, whether voluntary or involuntary, is punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years.” See also, e.g., Forbes v. State, 324 Md. 335, 340 , 597 A.2d 427 (1991) (“Common law involuntary manslaughter carries a ten year maximum term of imprisonment and is a felony[.]”). Bowers contends, however, that the discussion in Connor concerning the penalty for manslaughter is dicta because the differences in punishment of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter were not before the Court.

It was dicta, Bowers argues, because the “Connor Court was not called upon to examine the construction of the manslaughter statute or opine whether there was a difference in the penalties for the two crimes.” Because Gibson relied on Connor for the premise that both types on manslaughter are punishable by the same maximum sentence, Bowers maintains that Gibson should not be relied upon either. “Obiter dictum ” is typically a judicial comment “that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).” Black’s Law Dictionary 1240 (10th ed.2014). However, the Court of Appeals has previously explained that “[w]hen a ³²² question of law is raised properly by the issues in a case and the Court supplies a deliberate expression of its opinion upon that question, such opinion is not to be regarded as obiter dictum although the final judgment in the case may be rooted in another point also raised by the record.” Schmidt v. Prince George’s Hosp., 866 Md. 535 , 551, 784 A.2d 1112 (2001) (citations omitted). A matter is not dictum if “the question was directly involved in the issues of law ... and the mind of the Court was directly drawn to, and distinctly expressed upon the subject.” Id. at 552, 784 A.2d 1112 (citing Carstairs v. Cochran, 95 Md. 488, 499 , 52 A. 601 (1902)). Upon our review of Connor and Gibson , we find that their discussion of the manslaughter penalty “reflects the application of this Court’s judicial mind,” id., and we therefore disagree with Bowers’s contention that those cases are not to be relied upon.

Our review of case law and legal authority on Maryland criminal law indicates a consistent and uniform understanding of the manslaughter sentencing statute. Accordingly, we disagree with Bowers that the manslaughter statute is capable of more than one interpretation and is, therefore, ambiguous. Webster, 359 Md. at 480 , 754 A.2d 1004 . “Because the text of the statute is unambiguous, we need not look beyond the plain language of the statute to discern the intent of the Legislature.” Dixon v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr.

Servs., 175 Md.App. 384, 412 , 927 A.2d 445 (2007) (citation omitted). However, even if we were to determine that the statute is ambiguous and would then necessarily review the legislative history of the manslaughter statute, the legislative history would support our position that a penalty under the statute is the same whether the conviction was for voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. ii. The history of the Maryland manslaughter statute does not support Bowers’s construction. Legislation is created with a particular objective or purpose.

Kaczorowski v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513 , 525 A.2d 628 (1987). In order to determine the purpose of the statute,