Jones v. State
23 A.3d 880
| Md. | 2011Background
- Jones convicted of unlawful possession of a regulated firearm as a felon under Pub. Safety Art. 5-133(b).
- He challenged the lack of an internal penalty section and the applicability of penalty provisions elsewhere.
- Virginia conviction for cocaine manufacturing/possession with intent to distribute was offered as predicate felony in Virginia and admitted in the facts.
- Court treated 5-143 as the intended penalty for 5-133(b) possessions by felons.
- Appellate court vacated the no-parole aspect but did not remand for new sentencing; court granted certiorari to resolve penalties, predicate predicates, and sentencing issues.
- Court ultimately remanded for new sentencing consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 5-133(b) have a penalty provision? | Jones argues no internal penalty; 5-143 not applicable. | State argues 5-143(b) is the penalty trigger for 5-133(b). | Yes; 5-143 provides the penalty for 5-133(b). |
| Can an out-of-state conviction serve as a predicate? | Out-of-state felony cannot be predicate under 5-133(b)(1). | Virginia conviction qualifies as a felonypredicate under 5-133(b)(1). | Yes; Virginia conviction can serve as predicate under 5-133(b)(1). |
| Was the five-year no-parole sentence properly imposed under 5-133(b)? | Mandatory five-year term should not apply to 5-133(b) because 5-133(c) governs. | Judge erred by applying 5-133(c) mandatory term to 5-133(b) case. | Erred; remand for new sentencing; remove erroneous no-parole imposition. |
| Is 5-143(a)/(b) a separate offense or the penalty for 5-133(b)? | 5-143 is not the penalty for 5-133(b). | 5-143 is the related penalty provision for possession offenses including felon possession. | 5-143 is the penalty for 5-133(b); the sentence must reflect that structure. |
| Should the case be remanded for a new sentencing proceeding? | No-parole misstatement requires correction. | Vacatur of no-parole suffices. | Remand for new sentencing consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 420 Md. 391 (Md. 2011) (penalty relation between statute and catch-all provision; discusses 5-143 and 5-133 interplay)
- Chen v. State, 370 Md. 99 (Md. 2002) (read penalty provision across related statutes when plain meaning allows)
- Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431 (Md. 2006) (knowingly language not a separate element; context matters)
- Monoker v. State, 321 Md. 214 (Md. 1990) (principle against guessing legislative intent; plain meaning analysis)
- Stanley v. State, 390 Md. 175 (Md. 2005) (statutory interpretation and legislative history relevance)