State of Maine v. Aubrey Armstrong, 237 A.3d 185

After a bench trial, Aubrey Armstrong was found guilty of felony murder (Class A) and robbery (Class A) and was sentenced on both counts.
Armstrong appealed, arguing double jeopardy; this Court in 2019 vacated the judgment and remanded, directing the trial court to merge the duplicative counts and sentence on the merged count.
On remand the State dismissed the robbery count instead of merging; the trial court reimposed the prior felony-murder sentence and characterized its action as amending the judgment rather than resentencing.
Armstrong appealed the amended judgment; the Sentence Review Panel accepted review and Armstrong sought further relief from this Court.
This opinion holds that trial courts must merge duplicative verdicts (not dismiss them) and that resentencing on the merged conviction with a new hearing is required; the judgment is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper remedy for duplicative verdicts on remand (merge v. dismiss)	Armstrong: counts must be merged per the mandate	State: dismissal of duplicative count acceptable; parties influenced procedure	Court: merger is the appropriate, uniform remedy; dismissal is improper on remand
Must the court conduct a new sentencing on the merged conviction?	Armstrong: yes — full resentencing hearing required	State: reimposing original sentence without new hearing suffices; sentences not sufficiently interrelated	Court: new sentencing proceeding required; parties must be heard and §1602 analysis applied
Did the trial court comply with the appellate mandate?	Armstrong: trial court failed to follow mandate to merge and resentence	State: court’s amended judgment cured double jeopardy	Court: trial court failed to conform to the appellate directions; reversal and remand required

State v. Armstrong, 2019 ME 117, 212 A.3d 856 (vacated dual convictions and remanded to merge and sentence on merged count)
State v. Martinelli, 2017 ME 217, 175 A.3d 636 (multiple punishments for same offense prohibited)
State v. Bellavance, 2013 ME 42, 65 A.3d 1235 (merger/consolidation is appropriate remedy to avoid double jeopardy)
Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (a second conviction for the same offense is impermissible even if no greater sentence results)
State v. Allard, 557 A.2d 960 (double jeopardy bars multiple convictions/punishments for same offense)
United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (a mere finding of guilt is not punishment for double jeopardy purposes)
United States v. Rivera, 872 F.2d 507 (reviving an improvidently dismissed count can raise additional double jeopardy problems)
United States v. Dávila-Félix, 763 F.3d 105 (trial courts must conform to appellate court directions on remand)
State v. Conroy, 2020 ME 22, 225 A.3d 1011 (whether sentences are interrelated affects need for resentencing)
State v. Lacourse, 2017 ME 75, 159 A.3d 847 (resentencing requires a new proceeding at which parties may be heard)