Sexton v. State

258 Md.App. 525

298 A.3d 1018

John Paul SEXTON

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 1324, Sept. Term, 2022

Appellate Court of Maryland. *

July 27, 2023

Argued by: Brian Saccenti, Asst. Public Defender (Natasha M. Dartigue, Public Defender of Maryland, on the brief), Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Argued by: Jessica V. Carter (Anthony G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on the brief), Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee

Panel: Friedman, Albright, Timothy E. Meredith (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Albright, J.

This appeal arises out of a motion for reduction of sentence filed in the Circuit Court for Frederick County by John Paul Sexton, appellant. After a hearing on September 23, 2022, the circuit court denied the motion, explaining that the question of Mr. Sexton's release was a matter for the parole board. This timely appeal followed.

The sole issue presented for our consideration is whether the circuit court applied the wrong legal standard and abused its discretion in denying the motion. For the reasons set forth below, we shall vacate the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

A. The Underlying Crime

In 1988, Mr. Sexton, a minor, was charged as an adult with various crimes arising out of the shooting death of Marc Uher. The shooting occurred on October 26, 1988, the evening before Mr. Sexton's seventeenth birthday. A jury trial was held in October 1989. The record showed that Mr. Sexton "shot and killed Marc Uher, his friend, in the course of a robbery." Sexton v. State , No. 681, Sept. Term 1990 at *1 (per curiam) (filed April 15, 1991). The shooting occurred when Mr. Sexton was accompanying Mr. Uher, who was delivering receipts from a gasoline station to the station owner. Id. at *2. At trial, Mr. Sexton testified on his own behalf that he "grabbed one of the money sacks and was getting out of the car when the victim suddenly accelerated the car causing the gun to strike the seat and accidentally discharge." Id. "Other evidence indicated that the victim was shot in the right temple from a distance of approximately six inches." Id.

Mr. Sexton was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, robbery, three counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and theft. On December 13, 1989, he was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree premeditated murder, a consecutive twenty years for one of the use of a handgun counts, and another consecutive twenty years for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The remaining counts merged for sentencing purposes. The judgment was affirmed on appeal to this Court. Sexton , No. 681, supra . The Supreme Court of Maryland (at the time named the Court of Appeals of Maryland)¹ denied Mr. Sexton's petition for writ of certiorari.

B. Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to the Juvenile Restoration Act

On May 27, 2022, more than 32 years after he was sentenced, Mr. Sexton, who remains incarcerated, filed in the circuit court a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Section 8-110 of the Criminal Procedure Article. See Md. Code, Crim. Proc. ("CP") § 8-110 (2001, 2018 Repl. Vol., 2022 Supp.). That section of the Maryland Code is part of what is known as the Juvenile Restoration Act ("JUVRA").² Chapter 61, Laws of Maryland 2021. Enacted in 2021, and effective October 1, 2021, JUVRA made three significant changes to Maryland's sentencing practices for juvenile offenders convicted as adults. "Specifically, it gave sentencing courts discretion to impose less than the minimum required by law, prospectively banned sentences of life without the possibility of parole, and authorized offenders sentenced before October 1, 2021 who have spent more than 20 years in prison to file a motion to reduce their remaining sentence." Malvo v. State , 481 Md. 72, 85, 281 A.3d 758 (2022) (citing CP §§ 6-235, 8-110 ). Only the final provision is at issue here. It applies "only to an individual who: (1) was convicted as an adult for an offense committed when the individual was a minor; (2) was sentenced for the offense before October 1, 2021; and (3) has been imprisoned for at least 20 years for the offense." CP § 8-110(a).

JUVRA specifies that the court may reduce the duration of a sentence if it determines that "(1) the individual is not a danger to the public; and (2) the interests of justice will be better served by a reduced sentence." CP § 8-110(c). The court is required to consider factors set forth in subsection (d), which provides:

(d) A court shall consider the following factors when determining whether to reduce the duration of a sentence under this section:

(1) the individual's age at the time of the offense;

(2) the nature of the offense and the history and characteristics of the individual;

(3) whether the individual has substantially complied with the rules of the institution in which the individual has been confined;

(4) whether the individual has completed an educational, vocational, or other program;

(5) whether the individual has demonstrated maturity, rehabilitation, and fitness to reenter society sufficient to justify a sentence reduction;

(6) any statement offered by a victim or a victim's representative;

(7) any report of a physical, mental, or behavioral examination of the individual conducted by a health professional;

(8) the individual's family and community circumstances at the time of the offense, including any history of trauma, abuse, or involvement in the child welfare system;

(9) the extent of the individual's role in the offense and whether and to what extent an adult was involved in the offense;

(10) the diminished culpability of a juvenile as compared to an adult, including an inability to fully appreciate risks and consequences; and

(11) any other factor the court deems relevant.

CP § 8-110(d).

The statute is silent as to the weight to be given to each factor, and Maryland's appellate courts have not addressed that issue. Regardless of whether the court decides to grant or deny the motion to reduce the duration of a sentence, it must issue its decision in writing and address the factors listed in subsection 8-110(d). See CP § 8-110(e)(1). If the motion is denied or granted in part, the individual may file another motion after three years. CP § 8-110(f)(1). A third and final motion may be filed after an additional three-year waiting period. Id. JUVRA does not affect the individual's opportunity to seek parole.

In the instant case, there is no dispute that Mr. Sexton was eligible to file his motion to reduce the duration of his sentence pursuant to CP § 8-110, but the State opposed any reduction of his sentence.

C. JUVRA Hearing

A hearing on the motion for reduction of sentence was held on September 23, 2022. The judge advised the parties that she had read the transcript of Mr. Sexton's trial and reviewed all of the documents and exhibits filed by both Mr. Sexton and the State.³

Counsel for Mr. Sexton argued that the court should reduce Mr. Sexton's sentence to time served or set a future release date.

In support of that request, counsel explained Mr. Sexton's experience with addiction as a teenager, stating:

John Paul Sexton deserves our mercy. John was a latchkey kid growing up. His parents loved him dearly but worked long hours and instilled in him a great pride in doing work, and doing work well.

That work ethic in doing the job, started at 13 for John when he started working at a sanitation plant. The summer he was 16, he could work full time and over the table. So he suddenly had the disposable income of an adult with an adolescent mindset.

The job was long, had labor intensive hours, and he became friends with his coworkers, adult men. They partied, so Mr. Sexton partied as well. And by the end of that summer, he had a full-fledged addiction to crack cocaine.

When school started, he could work less and less, and the disposable income he had to feed his addiction dried up. Mr. Sexton was playing an adult with the training, experience, and mindset of an adolescent. He could not appreciate the stakes.

To feed his addiction, Mr. Sexton started resorting to things he's not proud of. Theft, it snowballed to robbery and murder. Adolescence and addiction strained John's decision and actions 33 years ago.

Counsel highlighted Mr. Sexton's achievements while incarcerated. Mr. Sexton "spent the first two weeks" in prison in solitary confinement, "detoxing, withdrawing, sobering up to the reality that he had taken a friend's life." After being released to the general population, he had only two infractions in all his years of incarceration, both of which occurred in the early years of his prison sentence. Mr. Sexton earned his GED within his first two years of incarceration, took college courses when permitted, and made the dean's list. He also joined a victim's rights organization that hosted an annual victim's rights week, arranged for speakers, and engaged with victims. From 2014 to 2019, Mr. Sexton worked as a trainer for America's Vet Dogs, a nonprofit organization that provided service dogs for veterans and first responders. In all, Mr. Sexton trained ten dogs, five from puppies. Counsel played for the court a recording of a local news story about America's Vet Dogs that included Mr. Sexton, who highlighted some of his work with a dog named Raven, the fourth dog he trained.

The State argued that regardless of Mr. Sexton's achievements while incarcerated, his motion should be denied. The State presented the court with victim impact statements shared with the State's Attorney's Office after Mr. Sexton's motion was filed, including one from Marc Uher's brother, Paul. Among other things, Paul Uher stated that Mr. Sexton had not apologized or made "any attempt at amends to" his family. Marc Uher's father, who was about 81 years old, found it too difficult emotionally to participate in the hearing.

The State argued that Mr. Sexton's motion should be denied because of the premeditated nature of the offense, the...