Richardson v. State

McAULIFFE, Judge. Duane Theodore Richardson was charged with the 21 October 1988 robbery and murder of Jeffrey Alan White, a desk clerk at a Holiday Inn in Baltimore County. On 13 December 1988, the State informed Richardson, pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.) Art. 27, § 412, that it would seek the death penalty. 1 Richardson filed motions to strike the ⁹⁶ notice of intention to seek the death penalty at the presentencing stage, the sentencing hearing, and in a motion for judgment of acquittal after testimony was received at the sentencing hearing. Richardson’s sole basis for these challenges was his contention that he was mentally retarded at the time the murder occurred, and thus ineligible for the death penalty under Art. 27, § 412(f)(1).

That section provides, in pertinent part: If a person found guilty- of murder in the first degree was, at the time the murder was committed, less than 18 years old or if the person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the person was, at the time the murder was committed, mentally retarded, the person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole and may not be sentenced to death. The trial court denied the motions. The defendant elected to be tried by the court on the issue of guilt or innocence, and was found guilty of murder in the first degree and related offenses. The defendant then elected to have his sentence determined by a jury.

At the sentencing stage, Richardson offered substantial evidence that his intelligence quotient was below 70 and his adaptive behavior was impaired. 2 ⁹⁷ Pursuant to the trial judge’s instructions, the jury followed the findings and sentencing determination form prescribed by Maryland Rule 4-343. The jury first found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a principal in the first degree to the murder. The jury then found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was mentally retarded within the meaning of the statute. Following the appropriate procedure, the jury then entered “Life Imprisonment” as the appropriate sentence, and proceeded to consider the final question of whether the sentence of life imprisonment should be without the possibility of parole.

After extended deliberation, the jurors were unable to agree on that question, and so informed the trial judge. The judge accepted the findings on the issues upon which the jurors had agreed, and declared a mistrial because of their inability to agree on the final issue after having deliberated for a reasonable period of time. In accordance with the mandate of Art. 27, § 413(k)(7)(iii), the judge then imposed a sentence of life with possibility of parole on the murder count. He imposed an additional sentence of 20 years imprisonment consecutive to the life sentence, as a result of the conviction of robbery with a deadly weapon.

The defendant appealed, contending, among other things, that the trial judge erred in refusing to strike the State’s motion of intent to seek the death penalty, and in refusing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal made during the sentencing proceeding. He stated these motions should have been granted because the evidence of his mental retardation was at all times clear and irrefutable. He also contended that the Maryland death penalty statute would be unconstitutional because of the denial of the equal protection of laws and of due' process if that statute were interpreted, in conjunction with Art. 41, § 4-516(b), Maryland Code (1957, 1990 Repl.Vol.) to mean that he is not eligible for parole until he has served 25 years of his life sentence. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, Richardson v. State, 89 Md.App. 259 , 598 A.2d 1 (1991), and we granted the defendant’s petition for certiorari. ⁹⁸ I. At the root of this controversy is the defendant’s concern that the computation of his eligibility for parole consideration will be incorrectly and adversely affected by the fact that his sentence was imposed following a sentencing proceeding conducted in accordance with Art. 27, § 413.

Article 41, § 4-516(c)(1), Maryland Code (1957, 1990 Repl.Vol., 1992 Cum.Supp.) 3 provides that, with two exceptions, a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment is not eligible for parole until the person has served 15 years or the equivalent of 15 years when considering allowances for diminution of period of confinement provided by law. 4 One of the stated exceptions is when a sentence of life without parole is imposed. The other exception, which is at issue in this case, is that: A person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment as a result of a proceeding under Article 27, § 413 is not eligible for parole consideration until the person has served 25 years or the equal of 25 years when considering the allowances for diminution of period of confinement provided for [by law]. Art. 41, § 4-516(c)(2). The defendant advances alternative arguments in support of his contention that his eligibility for parole consideration with respect to his life sentence 5 should be calculated by applying the 15-year limitation 6 of § 4-516(c)(l) rather than the 25- ⁹⁹ year limitation of § 4-516(c)(2).

First, he argues that he should not have been “sentenced to life imprisonment as a result of a proceeding under Article 27, § 413” because his motions to strike the State’s notice of intention to seek a sentence of death should have been granted. Alternatively, he argues that he is not “[a] person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment as a result of a proceeding under Article 27, § 413” within the meaning of Art. 41, § 4 — 516(c)(2) because the legislature intended by those words to include only those persons who were found to be “death-eligible” but were sentenced to life imprisonment because the § 413 sentencing authority did not find that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances.

II

The State suggests that consideration in this case of the question of the legislature’s intent in amending the parole statute would be premature, and that the defendant will have to serve 15 years before that issue becomes justiciable. We do not agree. Rather, we find that interpretation of the statute is essential to the proper resolution of issues raised by this petition, and we will therefore address the question even though by so doing we provide the answer to a future, as well as a present, problem.

III

We are not persuaded by the defendant’s first argument, that his motions to strike should have been granted. Although not so denominated, what the defendant sought by his motions to strike the State’s notice of intention to seek a sentence of death was the entry of summary judgment on the issue of mental retardation. While conceding that he bore the burden of proof on that issue, the defendant contended that the evidence of his mental retardation was so overwhelming that the trial judge should have predetermined that issue as a matter of law, thereby avoiding the necessity of a full-blown § 413 sentencing proceeding. ¹⁰⁰ The defendant’s argument fails as a result of a very-basic principle: summary judgment does not exist as a part of our criminal procedure. Maryland Rule 2-501, dealing with motions for summary judgment, applies only to civil matters, see Rule 1-101, and there is no similar procedure set forth in Title 4 of the Rules, which governs procedure in criminal cases.

The defendant’s prehearing motions were, in effect, motions for summary judgment, and they were properly denied. 7 The motion made by the defendant at the conclusion of the evidence in the sentencing proceeding presents a different procedural question — the right of a defendant to make a motion questioning the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a § 413 sentencing proceeding. Rule 4-324, dealing with motions for judgment of acquittal, was obviously designed for use at a trial on the issue of guilt or innocence. We note, however, that the United States Supreme Court has described a sentencing proceeding similar in many respects to that provided by § 413 as “like the trial on the question of guilt or innocence.... ” Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 446 , 101 S.Ct. 1852, 1862 , 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981). The Supreme Court has also accepted the characterization that a jury “acquitted the defendant of whatever was necessary to impose the death sentence” when it returned a verdict of life imprisonment in a capital sentencing proceeding.

Id. at 445 , 101 S.Ct. at 1861 . Assuming that a motion for judgment of acquittal may be used to test the legal sufficiency of evidence in a capital sentencing proceeding, we fail to see how the granting of that motion would have improved the defendant’s position with respect to the applicability of the parole eligibility statute. The 25-year limitation of Art. 41, § 4-516(c)(2) applies to “[a] person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment as a result of a proceeding under Art. 27, § 413.” A sentence imposed as a result of a motion granted during a ¹⁰¹ § 413 hearing is as much a “result of a proceeding under Art. 27, § 413” as would be a sentence imposed because of the jury’s consideration of the same evidence. If the State is correct in its assertion that any sentence imposed as a result of any § 413 proceeding falls within the 25-year parole limitation, the defendant could not avoid the impact of the law by arguing that the sentence resulted from action taken in the middle, as opposed to at the end, of the proceeding, or that the decision resulted from a judge’s, as opposed to a jury’s, consideration of the evidence presented at the proceeding.

IV

We turn, then, to the more difficult question of what the legislature intended when it spoke, in Art. 41, § 4-516(c)(2), of sentences of life imprisonment imposed “as a result of a proceeding under Art. 27, § 413.” The State makes a strong argument that the literal language of § 4-516(c)(2) embraces any sentence of life that occurs after a § 413 sentencing proceeding has begun. The defendant contends that the legislature must have intended to include within the sanction of § 4-516(c)(2) only those sentences of life imprisonment that result from the process of weighing aggravating against mitigating circumstances — the process that is the focus of § 413. Otherwise, argues the defendant, persons who are not “death-eligible” could be subjected to a significant deprivation of parole eligibility upon the whim of the prosecutor, because the prosecutor may force a § 413 hearing for any person found guilty of first degree murder simply by filing a timely notice of intention to seek a sentence of death. Thus, the argument proceeds, persons guilty of first degree murder but not eligible for the death penalty would, under the State’s interpretation of the statute, receive significantly different treatment with respect to parole eligibility without any rational basis, in violation of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and of due process.

The legislature has, for more than 50 years, distinguished persons receiving life sentences from those receiving other sentences of imprisonment for purposes of parole consider ¹⁰² ation. By Chapter 406 of the Laws of 1939, the legislature provided that no person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment shall be eligible for parole consideration until he shall have served in confinement fifteen years. Later, when by Chapter 625 of the Laws of 1953 the power to grant parole was generally transferred from the governor to the Board of Parole and Probation, the legislature retained the 15-year limitation for persons serving terms of life imprisonment, and further conditioned the grant of parole to such persons upon the approval of the governor. With the exception of an amendment to incorporate into the 15-year limitation the concept of allowances for diminution of a period of confinement, the statute remained essentially unchanged until 1983.

On 12 January of that year, Senator Simpson introduced Senate Bill 41, which would have increased from 15 to 25 years the time a person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve before becoming eligible for parole consideration. Neither the law that existed at that time nor the amendment as proposed by S.B. 41 would have generated any colorable complaint of denial of equal protection or of due process of law. The classification created by the legislature, placing persons serving life sentences in one category and those serving other than life sentences in another, for purposes of parole consideration, had a clear and rational basis. S.B. 41 did not, however, pass in its original form.

After passage in the Senate, the bill was sent to the House, and referred to the Judiciary Committee. That committee amended the bill so that the 25-year limitation would not apply to every person sentenced to life imprisonment, but only to those who