Washington v. State
200 Md. App. 641
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Washington was convicted in Charles County Circuit Court of driving without a license and two counts of fleeing or eluding police.
- One fleeing count was for fleeing on foot (TA §21-904(b)(2)) and the other for willfully failing to stop in a marked police vehicle (TA §21-904(c)(1)).
- Sentencing imposed separate sentences for the two fleeing or eluding convictions; one count later vacated on appeal.
- Appellant argued the two fleeing counts arose from a single continuous act and should merge for sentencing.
- Appellee State argued the two convictions were separate acts under separate statutory provisions and could be sentenced separately.
- The Court vacated one of the fleeing sentences, holding the two convictions constitute the same offense and merger was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two fleeing or eluding counts merge for sentencing | Washington contends there was a single uninterrupted attempt to elude. | State contends two separate acts occurred (car pursuit and foot pursuit) meriting separate sentences. | Yes; counts merge; only one sentence for fleeing/eluding could stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678 (2003) (guides unit of prosecution for resisting arrest; single transaction analysis)
- Jones v. State, 357 Md. 141 (1999) (analyzes multiple offenses within one statute; informs merger analysis)
- Taylor v. State, 381 Md. 602 (2004) (double jeopardy framework for same offense vs. separate offenses)
- Whack v. State, 288 Md. 137 (1980) (legislature may permit separate sentences for same-transaction offenses under certain conditions)
- Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289 (2006) (merger where legislature did not intend multiple punishments for same act)