ABDUL-MALEEK v. State
2012 Md. LEXIS 256
Md.2012Background
- Abdul-Maleek was convicted of theft in the Circuit Court after a de novo appeal of a District Court judgment.
- District Court sentenced him to 18 months with most suspended and restitution; he appealed and proceeded to a de novo jury trial in Circuit Court.
- Circuit Court convicted him of theft and imposed a more severe sentence (8 months to be served; 18 months total with 8 months incarceration and 18 months supervised probation).
- The court at sentencing made remarks referencing Abdul-Maleek’s exercise of his right to a de novo appeal.
- The State sought a harsher sentence and the sentencing court commented on the de novo appeal, prompting Abdul-Maleek to argue the sentence violated CJ § 12-702(c) and due process.
- This Court granted certiorari to decide whether referencing the de novo appeal during sentencing violated law and whether resentencing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the circuit court impermissibly base the sentence on the de novo appeal right? | Abdul-Maleek argues the court used the appeal right as a factor. | State argues §12-702(c) allows a more severe sentence after de novo appeal based on permissible considerations. | Yes; remanded for resentencing due to impermissible consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 274 Md. 536 (1975) (vindictiveness concerns when judge comments on plea/trial decisions)
- Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192 (2001) (sentencing factors; appearance of impartiality; de novo proceedings treated as original)
- Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460 (2007) (waiver rule for sentencing issues; preservation discretion)
- Jennings v. State, 339 Md. 675 (1995) (remnants of judgment when considering remorse vs. conviction)
- Bible v. State, 411 Md. 138 (2009) (discretion to review waived issues to promote justice)
- Medley v. State, 386 Md. 3 (2005) (presumption of correct law by judge; impartiality governing sentencing)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (due process protections against vindictiveness in sentencing after appeal)
- Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192 (2001) (emphasizes impartiality and permissible sentencing factors)