Collins v. State

1

JACQUON LAKEEM COLLINS v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1329-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland^[*]

February 27, 2023

Circuit Court for Dorchester County Case No. 09-K-08-013040

Wells C.J., Shaw, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[**]

PER CURIAM

Following a 2008 jury trial in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County Jacquon Lakeem Collins, appellant, was convicted of attempted second-degree murder; first-degree burglary; first-degree assault; second-degree assault; reckless endangerment; and wearing or carrying a dangerous weapon. The court sentenced appellant to a total term of 40 years' imprisonment.

In 2022, appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence claiming that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and first-degree burglary, and (2) even if the evidence was sufficient, the court should have merged his sentences for those offenses under either the required evidence test or principles of fundamental fairness. The circuit court denied his motion without a hearing. On appeal, appellant raises the same contentions that he raised in his motion to correct illegal sentence. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.

As an initial matter, appellant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence. See Bryant v. State, 436 Md. 653, 665-66 (2014) (holding that, where appellant's "complaint relate[d] to the sufficiency of the evidence" to prove that he had been convicted of predicate crimes, his appellate challenge to enhanced sentence was not cognizable under Rule 4-345(a)); see also State v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269, 273 (2006) (observing that "a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not an alternative method of obtaining belated appellate review of the proceedings that led to the imposition of judgment and sentence in a criminal case"). Therefore, we only consider his contention that his conviction for first-degree burglary should have merged with his conviction for attempted second-degree murder.

As to that claim, appellant first asserts that his convictions for those offenses should have merged under the required evidence test. Specifically, he contends that, at the time of his trial, the offense of first-degree burglary required the breaking and entering of someone's home with the intent to commit a theft or crime of violence, and that the jury could have found him guilty of first-degree burglary based on him having committed the violent crime of attempted second-degree murder. We disagree. "Sentences for two convictions must be merged when: (1) the convictions are based on the same act or acts, and (2) under the required evidence test, the two offenses are deemed to be the same, or one offense is deemed to be the lesser included offense of the other." Brooks v. State, 439 Md. 698, 737 (2014). In applying the "required evidence" test "courts look at the elements of the two offenses in the abstract. All of the elements of the lesser included offense must be included in the greater offense. Therefore, it must be...