Hamrick v. State

1

ANCIL TONY HAMRICK v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1780-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

September 4, 2024

Circuit Court for Calvert County Case No. 04-K-00-000272

Berger, Leahy, Wilner, Alan M., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ^[*]

OPINION

Leahy J.

In this appeal we consider whether the Circuit Court for Calvert County erred when it denied the underlying motion filed under Maryland Rule 4-345(a) to correct an allegedly illegal sentence for first-degree burglary.

The facts of the case leading to the verdict are straightforward and undisputed. In early December 2000, Mr. Ancil Hamrick ("Appellant") broke into the home of Darlene Turney and killed her. Following a jury trial in June 2001, Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and first-degree burglary.

The mazy sentencing history, however, set the stage for the issue on appeal, beginning when the sentencing court sentenced Appellant improperly for both the premeditated murder and felony murder convictions. Because a defendant may not be sentenced twice for the same murder, as pointed out by the State in Appellant's direct appeal in Hamrick v. State, No. 1106, Sept. Term, 2001 (Md.App. Ct. filed Aug. 14, 2002), we vacated Appellant's sentence for first-degree felony murder. Hamrick, slip op. at 1617. On post-conviction relief, Hamrick was granted a new sentencing hearing, during which the circuit court reduced his sentence for first-degree premeditated murder to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, but left his consecutive sentence for first-degree burglary undisturbed. Accordingly, today Appellant retains only the sentences he received for the premeditated murder and burglary convictions.

In June 2022, Appellant filed a "Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence" in the Circuit Court for Calvert County. He alleged that the sentence he received for the burglary conviction was an inherently illegal sentence that must be "corrected or vacated" because his burglary conviction should have merged with his felony murder conviction. The circuit court held a hearing on the motion and, in November 2022, denied the motion. Appellant noted a timely appeal and assigns error to the circuit court's decision.^[1]

We hold that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. As indicated in Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260 (1977), when a jury finds a defendant guilty of both premeditated murder and a separate felony, the convictions do not merge. Here, the jury convicted Appellant twice for the murder of Darlene Turner- which was aggravated to first-degree murder by two alternative theories: premeditation under Maryland Code (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol.), Criminal Law Article ("CR"), § 2-201(a)(1), and the commission of an enumerated felony under § 2-201(a)(4). It was "redundant" for the circuit court to impose two murder sentences for a single offense. Burroughs v. State, 88 Md.App. 229, 247 (1991) (Moylan, J.). That is why this Court vacated the redundant sentence for felony murder on direct appeal. Hamrick, slip op. at 17. The rule of lenity did not require this Court on direct appeal, nor the circuit court at the resentencing hearing, to vacate Appellant's premeditated murder sentence, rather than his redundant felony murder sentence, because a finding that the murder was "deliberate, premeditated, and willful[,]" CR § 2-201(a)(1), represents a more culpable mens rea than that which is required to establish felony murder.^[2] See Brooks v. State, 104 Md.App. 203, 224-25 (1995) (comparing the mens rea required for felony murder and premeditated murder), abrogated on other grounds by Winters v. State, 434 Md. 527 (2013). Therefore, as it stands, Appellant's sentence for first-degree burglary is not an illegal sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(a) because he was convicted of both first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree burglary. We shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

We summarized the factual background of Appellant's case in our prior unreported decision authored by Judge James Salmon in Hamrick v. State, No. 1106, Sept. Term, 2001 (Md.App. Ct. filed Aug. 14, 2002):

On June 8, 2001, Ancil Hamrick was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Calvert County of first[-]degree premeditated murder, first[-]degree felony murder, and first[-]degree burglary. He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the two murder convictions and to a consecutive term of twenty years for the burglary conviction.

* * *

In the trial court, appellant admitted killing Darlene Turney in the early morning hours of December 3, 2000.... Appellant's defense was that at the time of the murder he was voluntarily intoxicated and therefore could not have formed the intent necessary for a conviction of either first[-]degree murder or first[-]degree burglary.

* * *

Appellant said that he consumed approximately twelve to thirteen beers .... During the late evening hours of December 2, or early hours of December 3, [A]ppellant drove to Ms. Turney's house in Calvert County, but parked his car several blocks away .... [H]e cut the phone lines to her house .... He then entered the basement . . . by way of a sliding glass door.

. . . Appellant woke Ms. Turney, and they immediately began arguing....[Appellant said] the following transpired:

. . . I hit her once and she fell to the floor. Then she snapped right back up and came towards me.... And that's when I hit her and I put my hand over her mouth while she was on the ground and rendered her unconscious. The last thing I remember was her leg kicking . . . that's the last I remember until I was climbing over the fence going to my car.

. . . [Appellant] threw away the knife that he had used to kill the victim.... [A]ppellant acknowledged that, although he had no recollection of cutting the victim, he must have been the one responsible[.]

Hamrick, slip op. at 1-3. As accurately summarized in the State's brief in this appeal:

The verdict sheet in Hamrick's trial asked four questions. First, it asked "[i]s the defendant guilty or not guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder?" The jury answered "[g]uilty." Second, it asked, "[i]s the defendant guilty or not guilty of First[-]Degree Felony Murder?["] The jury answered, "[g]uilty." Between questions two and three, the verdict sheet instructed, "[i]f you find the defendant guilty of counts 1 or 2 or both, then skip question 3 and continue to question 4." Question three asked, "[i]s the defendant guilty or not guilty of Second[-]Degree Murder?" Pursuant to the instruction, the jury did not render a verdict on question three. Finally, question four asked, "[i]s the defendant guilty or not guilty of First[-]Degree Burglary?" The jury responded, "[g]uilty."

(Citations to the record omitted).

In his direct appeal to this Court, Hamrick did not contest whether it was improper for him to have "received a sentence for both first[-]degree premeditated murder and first [-]degree felony murder."^[3] Hamrick, slip op. at 16-17. However, in its brief the State "implied" that under Burroughs v. State, 88 Md.App. 229 (1991), Hamrick should not have received two sentences for the same killing. Hamrick, slip op. at 17. We agreed, and, accordingly, determined that:

[U]nder Burroughs, [A]ppellant should not have received a sentence for both first[-]degree premeditated murder and first[-]degree felony murder. Therefore, the sentence for first[-]degree felony murder shall be vacated.

Hamrick, slip op. at 17.^[4]

Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief in February 2003, as well as an amended and supplemental petition in November 2004 and November 2005, respectively. As explained in a memorandum opinion entered June 28, 2007, the circuit court found that Hamrick established that his counsel was deficient at his sentencing hearing for failure to call a particular witness and that this prejudiced Hamrick. Accordingly, the court granted Hamrick a new sentencing hearing. At that sentencing hearing, the court modified Hamrick's sentence for first-degree premeditated murder from life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, but left his consecutive sentence for first-degree burglary undisturbed.

In June 2022, Appellant filed the underlying Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence in which he asserted that his sentence for the burglary conviction was an "inherently illegal sentence" and, therefore, must be "corrected or vacated[.]" (We discuss Appellant's contentions in greater detail below.) A hearing was held on October 24, 2022, and, by memorandum opinion and order entered November 9, 2022, the circuit court denied Appellant's motion. Appellant noted a timely appeal to this Court on December 9, 2022.

DISCUSSION

I.

Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence

A. Standard of Review

"Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law - as is the question whether an alleged defect relating to a sentence is cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence." Farmer v. State, 481 Md. 203, 222 (2022). "Accordingly, an appellate court reviews a denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence de novo." Id. at 222-23 (citing Johnson v. State, 467 Md. 362, 389 (2020), and State v. Crawley, 455 Md. 52, 66 (2017)).

B. Legal Framework

Before this Court, Appellant offers several arguments in support of his contention that his first-degree burglary sentence is illegal because it should have merged into his felony murder conviction. The State refutes them all. To better understand the parties' contentions on appeal, we first examine the applicable law.

As explained by the Supreme Court of...