State v. Harrell
2012 ME 82
| Me. | 2012Background
- Harrell was charged in Cumberland County in June 2011 with domestic violence assault against his girlfriend.
- He pleaded guilty to the charge in October 2011 pursuant to a plea agreement with the State.
- The court sentenced Harrell to seven months in the county jail and imposed a $300 fine.
- The court treated the $300 fine as a mandatory minimum under the domestic-violence statute, based on its view of 17-A M.R.S. § 207-A.
- The State conceded that the $300 fine was not mandatory and that the court erred in incorporating the minimum-fine requirement.
- Harrell appealed the fine portion of the sentence; the court vacated the mandatory fine and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the $300 minimum fine mandatory under 17-A M.R.S. § 207-A for DV assault? | Harrell argues the fine is not mandatory. | State contends the DV statute requires the mandatory fine. | Fine not mandatory; vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schmidt, 988 A.2d 975 (2010 ME 8) (illegality of certain sentencing provisions reviewable on direct appeal)
- State v. Kee, 398 A.2d 384 (Me. 1979) (severability of illegal fines from imprisonment in sentencing)
- State v. Brockelbank, 33 A.3d 925 (2011 ME 118) (de novo review of legal questions including statutes and sentencing)
- State v. Cain, 888 A.2d 276 (2006 ME 1) (statutory interpretation and legality of sentences)
- State v. Stevens, 912 A.2d 1229 (2007 ME 5) (rule of lenity in interpreting ambiguous criminal statutes)
- State v. Pelletier, 434 A.2d 52 (Me. 1981) (consideration of offender's financial capacity in setting fines)