290 A.3d 542
Me.2023Background
- On Dec. 22, 2019, Murray‑Burns fired an AR‑15 style rifle at pursuing police, striking a cruiser and officers; he later threatened a civilian and was arrested with weapons and body armor in his vehicle.
- A grand jury indicted him on 19 counts; he pleaded guilty to ten counts of aggravated attempted murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, failure to stop, and theft; other counts were dismissed.
- At sentencing the court set a 40–45 year basic term and then imposed multiple sentences, including four consecutive 45‑year suspended terms (total aggregate exposure 225 years with 30 years to serve), without identifying statutory §1608 findings or performing Hewey analyses for each consecutive sentence.
- The State later agreed the consecutive sentences were unauthorized and moved to correct; the court vacated and reinstated its original judgment; Murray‑Burns sought discretionary sentence review.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held that the sentencing court failed to make the findings required by 17‑A M.R.S. §1608 and vacated the sentences, remanding for resentencing limited by 15 M.R.S. §2156(1‑A) (new sentence not more severe than the appealed one).
- The Court also clarified that discretionary sentence review may include challenges to facial illegality of a sentence, and it declined to predefine the meaning of “more severe.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of consecutive sentences under 17‑A §1608 | State: Consecutive sentences require statutory findings; here the court failed to make them | Murray‑Burns: Court lacked statutory authority to impose consecutive sentences and did not perform required analyses | Held: Court imposed consecutive sentences without the required §1608 findings or Hewey analyses; sentences vacated and remanded |
| Availability of facial‑illegality review in a discretionary sentence appeal | State: Such legality claims belong only in a direct appeal; discretionary review should not reach them | Murray‑Burns: Discretionary review may and should address facial illegality; he sought remand under §2156(1‑A) | Held: Discretionary sentence review is broad enough to include facial illegality; the appeal is justiciable here |
| Applicability of §1608(1)(D) (seriousness requiring sentence beyond maximum) | State: §1608(1)(D) could justify consecutive sentences here | Murray‑Burns: §1608(1)(D) inapplicable because aggravated attempted murder max is life | Held: §1608(1)(D) cannot apply as a matter of law because the statute requires a sentence in excess of the maximum and the maximum for the offense is life |
| Remedy on vacatur and remand; meaning of “not more severe” under §2156(1‑A) | State: Remand for resentencing; trial court may again impose consecutive sentences if it makes proper §1608 findings | Murray‑Burns: Requested a specific mandate limiting any facet of the new sentence so it cannot exceed earlier terms | Held: Vacated sentences and remanded for resentencing under §2156(1‑A) (new sentence may not be more severe); Court declined to define “more severe” now as not ripe |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tellier, 580 A.2d 1333 (Me. 1990) (discretionary sentence review may include facial illegality)
- State v. Davenport, 138 A.3d 1205 (Me. 2016) (direct appeal reviews facial illegality only; propriety not reviewed on direct appeal)
- State v. Ricker, 770 A.2d 1021 (Me. 2001) (facial illegality may be raised on direct appeal as of right)
- State v. Stanislaw, 65 A.3d 1242 (Me. 2013) (sentencing court must perform separate Hewey analysis for each conviction when imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Hewey, 622 A.2d 1151 (Me. 1993) (framework for considering extended probation and sentence considerations)
- State v. Brockelbank, 33 A.3d 925 (Me. 2011) (questions of law, including sentence legality and statutory interpretation, reviewed de novo)
- State v. Treadway, 240 A.3d 66 (Me. 2020) (§1608 prohibits consecutive sentences absent one of the enumerated findings)
- State v. Violette, 576 A.2d 1359 (Me. 1990) (resentencing on remand after successful sentence appeal cannot be more severe absent defendant misconduct)