OSCAR CRUZ-QUINTANILLA v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Barbera, July 31, 2017,
Sentencing- Evidence of Gang Membership- Evidence of membership in a violent criminal gang is admissible at sentencing even where “membership is unrelated to the convictions and the defendant is not connected to any criminal offenses on behalf of the gang.”

Facts
After a jury trial in PG County, Cruz-Quintanilla was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and other related offenses. He was not charged with any gang-related offenses and no evidence of his membership in a criminal gang was offered at trial.
At sentencing, the State called Sgt. Norris, a gang expert from PGPD, to testify that Cruz-Quintanilla was a documented member of MS-13.
Sgt. Norris testified that all members of MS-13 would be aware of the gang’s purpose: to commit criminal acts of violence. Sergeant Norris further testified that “[o]ne of the common mottos” for MS-13 is “mata, m-a-t-a, vola, v-o-l-a, controla, c-o-n-t-r-o-l-a, which is kill, rape, and control.” And that any MS-13 member would “have to know that MS-13 engages in violence because the mere initiation of MS-13 involves violence. It involves you getting beaten by your own MS-13 member friends.” Sergeant Norris stated that “there are several actions that you have to take prior to being jumped in [i.e., initiated], which is putting in work for the gang or committing crimes for the gang to show that you are loyal to the gang and show that they can trust you, that you’re going to support the gang.”
Importantly, Sergeant Norris added that one cannot be a member of MS-13 and decline to participate in violence. Any MS-13 member who declines to participate in the gang’s criminal acts of violence is subject to discipline by other gang members.
There was no evidence that Cruz-Quintanilla had directly participated in any such acts, however.
Based in part on Cruz-Quintanilla’s gang membership, the judge imposed a sentence of 20 years suspend all but 9 consecutive to 3 years for the weapon and reckless endangerment charges.
Cruz-Quintanilla appealed and the Court of Special Appeals upheld his sentence.
Cruz-Quintanilla then requested that the Court of Appeals review the case, arguing that evidence of gang membership was improperly considered at sentencing.

Law from the Case
Held: The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge that the evidence was relevant.
Sentencing – A trial judge has discretion to admit a “wide variety of information” about a defendant’s “life and characteristics.” This includes the defendant’s “reputation, prior offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, and social background.”
Sentencing- The job of the sentencing judge is to impose a sentence that fits “the offender and not merely the crime.”
Sentencing – However, a sentence cannot be based on unconstitutional considerations such as punishing a defendant for exercising his First Amendment right of “freedom of association”
Sentencing – Evidence of a defendant’s membership an organized gang is relevant and admissible during sentencing if the State establishes that the gang’s purpose and objectives are criminal in nature.
Sentencing- If a defendant is a member of an organized gang with mixed legal and illegal goals, then the defendant must be connected with the illegal side of the organization in order to introduce evidence of his participation at sentencing.
From the case: The evidence here established that MS-13’s objectives, well known to its members, are to kill, rape, and control. Moreover, all members know that they are expected to participate in violence or be subject to discipline by other gang members. Therefore, evidence that Cruz-Quintanilla was a member of MS-13 was admissible at sentencing.