Britton v. State
201 Md. App. 589
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Britton pleaded guilty in Montgomery County Circuit Court to resisting arrest and two counts of second-degree assault on Officers Moreau and Schwarz, receiving three consecutive sentences: two years for Moreau, eighteen months for Schwarz, and eighteen months for resisting arrest.
- At the plea hearing, the State described a high-speed, dangerous chase, a ram into Moreau's car, a pursuit on foot, a melee with four officers, taserings, and injuries to officers; charges included resisting arrest, four assaults, fleeing and eluding, and attempting to disarm an officer; Moreau’s assault was later reduced to second-degree assault.
- After the plea, the State entered a nolle prosequi on remaining counts; Britton appealed but the direct appeal was dismissed as improper due to pleading-inspection under Maryland law.
- Britton later moved under Maryland Rule 4-345(a) to correct an illegal sentence, seeking merger of the two assault convictions into resisting arrest for sentencing purposes; the circuit court denied the motion, and Britton noted this appeal.
- The State moved to dismiss arguing the sentence was not illegal under Rule 4-345(a); the court addressed whether illegality inhered in the sentence itself and discussed merger under the required-evidence test.
- The court held that the resisting arrest conviction and the two assault convictions involve distinct acts and elements; merging them would ignore different focuses and severities, and the assault convictions did not merge into resisting arrest for sentencing purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to merge convictions constitutes an illegal sentence under Rule 4-345(a) | Britton | State | No illegal-sentence;merger not required; collateral attack denied |
| Whether second-degree assault convictions on two officers merge with resisting arrest under the required-evidence test | Britton | State | Do not merge; distinct elements and acts; separate punishments permissible |
| Whether the correct vehicle for challenge was Rule 4-345(a) collateral attack vs direct appeal | Britton | State | Rule 4-345(a) proper; illegality inhering in the sentence itself |
Key Cases Cited
- Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 (1989) (multiple punishment-same-trial problems; collateral attack on fines via Rule 4-345(a))
- Campbell v. State, 65 Md.App. 498 (1985) (impermissible sentences can be reviewed post-conviction; merger concerns)
- Ingram v. State, 179 Md.App. 485 (2008) (distinguishes certain double jeopardy claims from sentence-inherent illegality)
- Cooper v. State, 128 Md.App. 257 (1999) (addresses merging of misdemeanor second-degree assault with resisting arrest)
- Grant v. State, 141 Md.App. 517 (2001) (merger analysis for misdemeanor second-degree assault and resisting arrest)
- Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678 (2003) (unit of prosecution for resisting arrest; multiple officers may be charged with separate assaults)
- Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460 (2007) (illegality inquiry under Rule 4-345(a) limited to sentence itself)