University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 31 Article 3 Number 2 Spring 2001

2001 Recent Developments: Johnson v. State: An Inchoate Sentence Shall Not Exceed the Maximum Sentence, without Enhancements, of the Target Crime Camela J. Chapman

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons

Recommended Citation Chapman, Camela J. (2001) "Recent Developments: Johnson v. State: An Inchoate Crime Sentence Shall Not Exceed the Maximum Sentence, without Enhancements, of the Target Crime," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 31 : No. 2 , Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol31/iss2/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recent Developments Johnson v. State: An Inchoate Crime Sentence Shall Not Exceed the Maximum Sentence, Without Enhancements, of the Target Crime

By Camela J. Chapman

he Court of Appeals of premeditated , The State must meet other special TMary land held that life with a deadly weapon, first­ conditions for death, or life imprisonment without the degree , use of a handgun without parole. !d. at 5. possibility of parole is not a legal in the commission of a or Second, the court reviewed sentence for to commit crime of violence, conspiracy to Sucik v. State, which held that murder. Johnson v. State, 2001 commit murder, and conspiracy to "death and life imprisonment Md. LEXIS 18 (2001). The commit robbery. Johnson was without the possibility of parole court's ruling clarified that death sentenced to life imprisonment are enhanced sentences for first­ or life imprisonment without the without the possibility of parole degree murder, and are possibility of parole are for the first-degree premeditated dependent upon special "enhanced" sentences for first murder conviction and a circumstances," and because an degree murder, and thus are consecutive sentence of life enhanced punishment is "highly dependant upon special without parole for the conspiracy penal," it has to be strictly circumstances. !d. at 6. to commit murder. On appeal, the construed. !d. at 7 (citing Sucik Accordingly, when a sentencing court of special appeals affirmed v. State, 344 Md. 611, 616-617, provision provides that the Johnson's sentence. The court of 689 A.2d 78, 80 ( 1997)). The punishment for an inchoate crime appeals granted Johnson's court remarked "conspiracy" is a shall not exceed the maximum petition for a writ of certiorari to common-law inchoate offense for punishment provided for the target determine whether life without which the General Assembly crime, the provision only parole is a legal sentence for the limited , by statute, the contemplates the basic maximum crime of conspiracy to commit punishment to the maximum sentence available for the target murder. sentence of the substantive crime. crime and does not incorporate First, the court examined /d. at 8. The court also observed the enhanced penalty provisions. Maryland case law interpreting that Maryland precedent !d. at 11. Maryland Code ( 1957, 1996 recognizes that this limitation on On November 10, 1997, Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 38 and§ the conspiracy sentence, in Judy Forrester, a disabled 412(b). !d. at 4. Section 38 reference to the maximum woman, was found in her home mandates the punishment for sentence of the substantive or bound with duct tape and fatally conspiracy and provides that the target offense, means the "basic shot. Rondell Johnson punishment cannot exceed the maximum sentence of the target ("Johnson") was convicted of maximum punishment provided offense and does not include any murder, robbery, conspiracy to for the substantive offense. !d. In enhanced penalty provisions" for commit those , and other addition, § 412(b) provides that such an offense. /d. The United offenses. the punishment for first-degree States Supreme Court has taken Johnson was found guilty in murder "shall be imprisonment for the same position in construing a the Circuit Court for Prince life" unless the State seeks death federal statute providing that the George's County of first-degree or life without parole. /d. at 5. sentence for or

31.2 U. Bait L.F. 20 Recent Developments conspiracy "may not exceed the on implication." /d. at 13 (citing punishment prescribed for the Deleon, 102 Md. App. at 86, offense which was the object of 648 A.2d at 1066-1067). The the attempt or the conspiracy." /d. court held that life imprisonment Next, the court reviewed without the possibility of parole is Deleon v. State, in which the not a legal sentence for conspiracy same sentencing issue was to commit murder. Accordingly, involved but with a different target the judgment of the court of crime. /d. at 11 (citing Deleon special appeals was reversed. /d. v. State, 102 Md. App. 58, 72, at 17. 648 A.2d 1053, 1059 (1968)). In Johnson v. State clarifies Deleon, the court held that when the statutory sentencing provisions a sentencing provision states that for inchoate offenses in Maryland. the punishment for an inchoate This holding illustrates that the crime shall not exceed the Maryland Legislature did not maximum punishment provided intend to allow trial judges to use for the target crime, the provision their discretion to enhance the only contemplates the basic sentencing penalties of inchoate maximum sentence available for crimes. With this holding, the the target crime and does not court informs trial judges that incorporate the enhanced penalty "enhanced" sentence provisions provisions. /d. Moreover, in are "sentencing options" available support of its holding, the Deleon for special cases and special court pointed out, "that parole was defendants and are not intended not an inherent part of the judicial to apply to inchoate crimes ofthe sentencing function and that, target offense. except m those limited circumstances when the Legislature has expressly empowered the courts to impose no-parole provisions under certain very specifically designed circumstances, the parole function is exclusively within the control of the executive branch of government." /d. at 12. Deleon further pointed out that the Legislature made provisions for enhanced penalties for some particular types of conspiracies and if they wanted to "specifically [] provide enhanced penalties for ... conspirators, it knows how to do so expressly and does not rely

31.1 U. Bait. L.F. 21