28 A.3d 164
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Marcus Washington was convicted in Charles County Circuit Court of driving without a license and two counts of fleeing or eluding police.
- He was sentenced to 60 days for driving without a license and then to consecutive, but suspended, sentences of one year for each fleeing or eluding conviction.
- Washington challenged the sentencing court’s imposition of separate sentences for the two fleeing convictions, arguing merger was required.
- On March 24, 2009, Officer Weaver attempted a stop; Washington drove off, fled on foot, and was eventually apprehended after a chase.
- The two fleeing convictions were based on TA 21-904(b)(2) (fleeing on foot from a uniformed officer) and TA 21-904(c)(1) (fleeing from a marked official vehicle by failing to stop).
- The Court vacated one fleeing sentence, holding that the two convictions constitute the same offense and may not be punished separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do TA 21-904(b)(2) and (c)(1) constitute the same offense requiring merger? | Washington: two acts in one incident; one continuous eluding | State: separate acts warrant separate sentences | They are the same offense; merger required; one sentence vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678 (2003) (guides unit-of-prosecution for related resisting/arrest/eluding cases)
- Jones v. State, 357 Md. 141 (1999) (analyzes multiple offenses within one statute and merger implications)
- Whack v. State, 288 Md. 137 (1980) (legislature may authorize separate sentences for same-act offenses in certain contexts)
- Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289 (2006) (merger when Legislature did not intend multiple punishments for same act)
- Warren, State v. Warren, 77 Md. 121 (1893) (single-transaction theory for offenses arising from one act)
- Taylor v. State, 381 Md. 602 (2008) (double jeopardy principles in Maryland; required-evidence test and merger guidance)