THEODORE SCOTT v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Watts, July 10, 2017,
Collateral Estoppel – After remand where an enhanced sentence has been vacated for insufficient evidence to prove an underlying conviction, the State may once again attempt to prove the underlying conviction

CoSA Opinion

Tough to ask the Court of Appeals to overrule the Supreme Court…
Facts:
In 2011, Scott was observed by PG County detectives robbing a 7-11. Scott was subsequently convicted of various crimes related to the armed robbery.
One of Scott’s sentences was enhanced under CR 14-101(d) for having been convicted of a third crime of violence. One of Scott’s underlying (prior) convictions was an aggravated assault conviction from DC, which the State backed up with the Statement of Charges from that case. Scott’s sentences were to be served consecutively.
Scott appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove that the DC conviction counted as a crime of violence in Maryland. The Court of Special Appeals agreed, holding that the charging document may have been different than the facts that Scott pled guilty to. The CoSA vacated Scott’s enhanced sentence (but leaving the rest in place) and sent it back for re-sentencing.
At re-sentencing, the State introduced the transcript from Scott’s DC assault conviction and the sentencing court re-imposed the original sentence. Scott requested that the sentencing judge change the sentences from consecutive to concurrent, but the sentencing judge said that he didn’t have the authority to change them since only the one sentence was vacated and the rest were already ordered to be served consecutive to that one.
Scott appealed, arguing that double jeopardy (more accurately: autrefois acquit/collateral-estoppel) barred his re-sentencing.

Autrefois Acquit- Sentencing is not the same as trial. Proving a sentence enhancement is not the same as proving an element of a crime.
Autrefois Acquit- Double Jeopardy- Designed to protect against retrial, not resentencing.

Underlying Convictions provide an exception to the general rule that failure to prove a sentencing enhancement doesn’t allow another try on remand

where an appellate court vacates
a sentence to which another sentence has been ordered to be consecutive and remands for
resentencing without vacating the consecutive sentence, the trial court may not make the
new sentence concurrent with the non-vacated consecutive sentence

Collateral Estoppel- “when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.

Unlike the plea of autrefois acquit, the doctrine of collateral estoppel “is not based
on two offenses being the same”; instead, it is based on two offenses “having a common
necessary factual component.”

Maryland’s prior case law was contrary to subsequent Supreme Court holding on double jeopardy. Because the prior case law didn’t rely on Maryland law, it was reversed.