State v. Ward
2011 ME 74
| Me. | 2011Background
- Ward planned to rob, kidnap, and murder a Belfast, Maine woman after identifying her as a target; he attacked her at her home, bound her, demanded money, and later drove her to a remote location to kill her; he repeatedly cut her throat, causing serious injuries; he admitted planning for two days and did a video reenactment at sentencing showing no remorse; he pled guilty to robbery, kidnapping, and attempted murder and was sentenced to a 50-year aggregate term with 45 years suspended and 4 years’ probation; the court imposed consecutive sentences for robbery and counts of kidnapping/attempted murder, with a total net 45 years to serve; Ward appealed arguing Eighth Amendment/Maine Constitution disproportionality, trial by jury issues, and misapplication of §1256.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Ward's aggregate sentence violate the state or federal proportionality standards? | Ward: sentence for attempted murder and aggregate are disproportionate. | State: sentences within statutory ranges; no gross disproportionality. | No; not greatly disproportionate under Maine or U.S. standards. |
| Did the trial court violate the right to trial by jury by making §1256 findings for consecutive sentencing? | Ward: jury should decide facts increasing maximum punishment. | Ice/Keene allow judge findings for consecutive sentencing without jury findings. | No constitutional violation; proper under Ice/Keene. |
| Did the court misapply 17-A M.R.S. §1256(2)-(3) in imposing consecutive sentences? | Ward: §1256(3)(B) bars consecutive sentences when crimes facilitate each other. | Crimes had different objectives; there was a substantial change and different motivations. | Court did not err; §1256(3)(B) not applicable; §1256(2) bases supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Horr, 831 A.2d 411 (Me. 2003) (interpretation of §1256(3)(B) and sequential sentencing guidance)
- State v. Schmidt, 988 A.2d 975 (Me. 2010) (controls on legality of sentence vs. propriety)
- State v. Gilman, 993 A.2d 14 (Me. 2010) (separation of proportionality and cruel/unusual analysis)
- State v. Keene, 927 A.2d 398 (Me. 2007) (consecutive sentences permissible without jury findings under Keene/Ice)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. 2009) (Sixth Amendment does not require jury findings for consecutive sentencing when statutory maximums are not exceeded)
- State v. Pineo, 798 A.2d 1093 (Me. 2002) (availability of sentence appeal on §1256 issues)