Jackson v. State

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 ¹⁹⁵ 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 the case to that court for resentencing before a different judge. 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 ¹⁹⁶ 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 Wood’s townhouse at 5593 Cedar Lane in Columbia, Maryland 3 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 Wood’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 Wood’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 ¹⁹⁷ 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 city. [5] And they live and act like they’re living in a ghetto somewhere. And [t ] hey weren’t invited out here to [behave ] like animals. Drugs and guns and drugs and guns.

It’s nonsensical. Other people don’t want that. Other people don’t tolerate that. And the problem here, of course, is that although Mr. Jackson has a drug problem, none of these people talk about drug problems.

This is the great Valentino Jackson. So he’s great part of the day and he’s goofy the other part of the day. With guns and drugs. So he turns it on and turns it off at will.

And it’s admirable that he’s able to deal effectively with his superiors in the military as well as the civilian employees at Toby’s Dinner Theater. But roaming around the streets at 8:80 in the morning, going to a WaWa, uh, going to somebody — going out of the way to go to somebody else’s house and confront people with sawed-off shotguns is what they do in the city. That’s why people moved out here. To get away from people like Mr. Jackson.

Not to associate with them and have them follow ¹⁹⁸ them out here and act like this was a jungle of some kind. So. It’s not. And our only chance to preserve it is to protect it.

The other thing that’s discouraging, of course, is that Mr. Jackson was placed on supervised probation on two previous occasions and he not only didn’t do well on probation, he failed miserably. And the reason he failed miserably was because he made no effort while under supervision to take advantage of the opportunity to address the very problems that he was well aware of. So it’s simply a question of warehousing him, to tell you the truth. All right.

Do you have anything further to say, Mr. Jackson? I’ll give you a chance now that you’ve had an opportunity to recover. 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 ¹⁹⁹ general comments about people moving to Columbia from other places, many from Baltimore City, and about how some of those people brought with them a culture of drugs and guns that has harmed the communities to which they have moved. Those comments were not directed to the “otherness” or outsider status of the people moving into Columbia from Baltimore City or elsewhere. Rather, they were a commentary about how many of the problems most often associated with the poorest urban areas of Baltimore City are now cropping up in suburban towns like Columbia.

The court did not appear concerned about where appellant [now petitioner] had come from- — or whether he was an outsider to Howard County at all. It seemed concerned about the nature of the conduct in which he had been engaging, and his recalcitrance to changing his behavior. Those were not impermissible considerations for the court to make during sentencing. 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. ²⁰⁰ 671, 679, 602 A.2d 1185, 1189 (1992), citing Johnson v. State, 274 Md. 536, 540 , 336 A.2d 113, 115 (1975). It is also well settled that “[o]nly three grounds for appellate review of sentences are recognized in this [SJtate: (1) whether the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or violates other constitutional requirements; (2) whether the sentencing judge was motivated by ill-will, prejudice or other impermissible considerations; and (3) whether the sentence is within statutory limits.” Gary, 341 Md. at 516 , 671 A.2d at 496 (emphasis added), citing Teasley v. State, 298 Md. 364, 370 , 470 A.2d 337, 340 (1984); see Reid v. State, 302 Md. 811, 820 , 490 A.2d 1289, 1294 (1985). The first and third grounds are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at bar; however, the issue before us involves the second ground — whether the sentencing judge was motivated by ill-will, prejudice or other impermissible considerations.

In United States v. Diamond, 561 F.2d 557 (4th Cir.1977), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered comments made by a sentencing judge that are similar to the comments made by the sentencing judge in the case at bar. In that case, two defendants, originally from New York, were convicted of theft of an interstate shipment of goods in Virginia. In sentencing, the trial judge said: I don’t know that — I suppose you have a constitutional right to commit a crime wherever you want to commit it. But the Court takes a dim view of people coming down from New York to commit their crimes in Virginia.

Now, I suppose that that is grounds for appeal, but I will state it right for the record. If they want to live and have their being in the State of New York, then let them have their source of a livelihood in the State of New York. If that livelihood is crime, then commit it up there.... Id. at 559 .

That appellate court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences. In its holding the court said: From our examination of the record, we are persuaded that the district judge exhibited no bias during defendants’ jury trial, but we conclude that the quoted comments ine ²⁰¹ luctably reflect bias in sentencing. The inference that the district judge considered as a factor in sentencing the fact that defendants who committed a crime within the district in which he presided were nonresidents is inescapable. We cannot permit a district judge who is an officer of a national judicial system and who is enforcing a national criminal code to be moved by such considerations of parochialism in imposing sentences.

We therefore vacate the sentences and remand the cases with directions that defendants be resentenced before a different district judge of the district. Id. Similarly, the sentencing judge in the case sub judice, gave the impression that he based his sentence, at least in part, on something beyond the facts and circumstances of the crime and the background of petitioner — specifically, that the sentencing judge based his sentence, at least in part, on a belief that petitioner was from Baltimore City. This is clearly an improper factor to base sentencing upon and gives the impression that the sentence imposed on petitioner by this judge may have been more severe based on the judge’s belief that petitioner was from Baltimore City. 7 Simply stated, it is not permissible to base the severity of sentencing on where people live, have lived, or where they were raised.

Additionally, the fact that the sentencing judge, who is Caucasian, uses words such as “ghetto,” “jungle,” “animals,” and “people like Mr. Jackson” who come “from the city” in describing an African-American defendant, has called into question, whether his comments might also have constituted racial bias, or the appearance of racial bias. In his brief, petitioner states: ²⁰² Imagine that you are an African-American____You are standing before a judge, a Caucasian gentleman, who is about to sentence you for your crimes. Before imposing a sentence of eighteen years’ imprisonment, the judge addresses you as follows: [There follows relevant portions of the trial judge’s comments we have before mentioned.] Undoubtedly, you, as would any reasonable person, would conclude from these comments that the sentence imposed was based, to some degree, on racial prejudice. And, even if the statements do not reflect actual racial prejudice on the part of the sentencer, the highly charged words used here plainly give an appearance of such prejudice....

While we cannot determine on the basis of this record whether the sentencing judge’s comments were actually based on race, and thus whether petitioner was also improperly sentenced by the sentencing judge in part because of his being an African-American, we recognize that the language used by the sentencing judge when sentencing petitioner could lead a reasonable person to draw such an inference. The constitutional guarantee of due process of law forbids a court from imposing a sentence based in any part on inappropriate considerations, including improper considerations relating to race. As we discussed, supra, although we cannot determine whether the sentencing judge’s comments were actually based on race, the sentencing judge clearly was not alert to avoid comments that may be so perceived. We have previously had the opportunity to consider improper appeals to racial prejudice, albeit by a prosecutor.

In Contee v. State, 223 Md. 575, 165 A.2d 889 (1960), an African-American male was being tried for the rape of a Caucasian woman. The prosecutor made repeated remarks designed to emphasize the racial