DANIEL CARTER V. STATE OF MARYLAND
JAMES E. BOWIE V. STATE OF MARYLAND
MATTHEW TIMOTHY MCCULLOUGH V. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, McDonald, August 29, 2018,
Juvenile – It was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to a 100-year aggregated sentence stemming from one event in that it was the equivalent of life without parole.

(Dissent in 54/55- Barbera, Greene, Adkins – Agree that 100 years=life w/o, but disagree that an executive order can cure an unconstitutional system)
(Dissent in 56- Watts, Getty – 100 years = release at 67 = within his lifetime, so not life w/o parole)

Facts:
In 2004, McCullough was a student at Randallstown High School in Baltimore County when another student called him a “bitch.” A fight later erupted and McCullough along with a friend ended up firing 12 shots into a crowd. Four students were seriously wounded with one paralyzed from the chest down.
Later that year, McCullough was convicted by a Baltimore County jury of four counts of first-degree assault.
At sentencing, the judge referred to McCullough at sentencing as a “suburban terrorist” and a “coward” and observed that until sentencing he had shown no remorse and had bragged about “beating the attempted murder rap” and the use of a handgun charge. While the sentencing judge acknowledged that the sentencing guidelines suggested a sentence between five and 10 years for each of the four counts, the judge stated that the guidelines did not capture how “vicious and heinous” the particular crime was and imposed the maximum period of incarceration – 25 years – for each assault count to run consecutively (a total of 100 years).
In 2016, McCullough filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
McCullough argued that 100 years in prison was cruel and unusual for a non-homicide conviction because the Supreme Court has previously held that life without parole was cruel and unusual punishment when imposed on juveniles for non-homicide offenses, and 100 years was effectively life without parole since he wouldn’t be eligible for parole for 50 years.
The circuit court for Baltimore County denied the motion and McCullough appealed, arguing that his sentence was illegal.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentencing in this case was appropriate.
McCullough then requested review by the Court of Appeals, arguing that 100 years was the equivalent of life for him.
Two other juveniles had also requested review by the Court of Appeals. Each had been sentenced to life with the possibility of parole (one for homicide, one for a non-homicide case). These two argued to the Court that Maryland wasn’t granting parole regularly enough for that possibility to be meaningful. Therefore, they should get new sentences.

From the Case: The Court of Appeals held that life with parole was constitutional, but that an aggregate 100-year sentence required a finding that the juvenile was incorrigible.

Sentencing – Juvenile – It is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole for a non-homicide case.

Sentencing – Juvenile – It is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole for a homicide case as a result of a mandatory sentence. There needs to be an individualized assessment to determine whether the juvenile is “incorrigible” (will never stop being a danger to society).

Sentencing – Juvenile – When a juvenile is sentenced to life in prison, but not found incorrigible, there needs to be “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”

Sentencing – Juvenile – “A lengthy term-of-years sentence can be a life sentence for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.”

Sentencing – Juvenile – Aggregated Sentences – Whether sentences from multiple crimes can be considered “life” for purposes of the Eighth Amendment will depend in part on looking at “the number of crimes, their seriousness, and the opportunity for the juvenile to reflect before each bad decision.” It will also involve looking at the need for sentencing (incapacitation vs deterrence vs retribution vs rehabilitation), the defendant’s role and actions, whether the defendant appreciated the seriousness of his or her actions, and the consequences of the criminal behavior.

From the Case: “Mr. McCullough’s sentence did not result from a single assault conviction, but rather from the maximum sentences for four such convictions run consecutively… All of his convictions related to a single incident on a single day. Although the offenses were very serious in their execution and in their consequences and Mr. McCullough was characterized as the instigator of the incident, it appears that he was convicted as an aider and abettor of the offenses rather than as the principal… we would thus consider Mr. McCullough’s sentence no differently than a single sentence…”

From the Case: “Given our conclusion that the 100-year sentence imposed in his case violated the Eighth Amendment under the standard articulated in Graham, Mr. McCullough will have to be re-sentenced to a disposition that is not equivalent to life without parole… The constraint imposed by the Eighth Amendment is that, while the sentence “is not required to guarantee eventual freedom,” it must allow a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” so that Mr. McCullough has “hope for some years of life outside the prison walls.” In our view, that means a sentence with parole eligibility significantly short of the 50-year mark. By comparison, if Mr. McCullough had been convicted of four separate crimes of violence and been sentenced to life without parole under CR §14-101(c), he would become eligible to seek parole at age 60, after 43 years of confinement. Consistent with Graham, whatever sentence is imposed must allow such an opportunity
for parole, but there is no guarantee or promise that Mr. McCullough will be released on
parole then or ever.”

Parole – An inmate in Maryland is generally eligible for parole after serving 1/4 of his sentence (violent crimes require serving at least 1/2 of that sentence).

From the Case: McCullough was convicted of 4 counts of 1st-degree assault and sentenced to 25 years for each. Therefore, “under current Maryland law, Mr. McCullough will become eligible for parole consideration after serving 50 years of his aggregate sentence”

Parole – An inmate serving a sentence of life is generally not eligible for parole for 15 years (25 for first-degree murder).

Juvenile – Parole- Maryland’s parole system is constitutional as applied to juvenile offenders.

From the Case: “While the general statutory standards that govern the Parole Commission’s decisions already arguably take into account demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, the Parole Commission has exercised the authority delegated by the General Assembly and has adopted regulations that incorporate factors specific to juvenile offenders. Those regulations have the force of law. Moreover, the Governor has adopted an executive order concerning parole recommendations related to juvenile offenders that is clearly designed to comply with Graham and Miller and to make transparent the Governor’s consideration of those factors. That also has the force of law… We cannot pretend that it does not exist. As long as it does exist, we cannot say that the sentences of Mr. Carter or Mr. Bowie are illegal.”