Trimble v. State

319 A.3d 1174

262 Md.App. 452

James Russell TRIMBLE

v.STATE of Maryland

No. 1834, Sept. Term, 2022

Appellate Court of Maryland.

August 1, 2024

Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Case No. 74841, Robert E. Cahill, Jr., Judge.

Argued by Brian M. Saccenti, Asst. Public Defender (Rachel Bennett, Asst. Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant.

Argued by Menelik Coates, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Anthony G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), for Appellee.

Argued Before: Reed, Beachley, Getty, Joseph M. Getty (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Getty, J.

This case asks us to review a motion for modification of sentence under the Juvenile Restoration Act ("JUVRA"), which allows an individual "convicted as an adult for an offense committed when the individual was a minor" to file a motion to reduce the duration of their sentence if the individual was sentenced before October 1, 2021, and has been imprisoned for at least 20 years for that offense. 2021 Md. Laws ch. 61; Md. Code (2001, 2018 Repl. Vol., 2022 Supp.), Crim. Proc. ("CP") Art. § 8-110.

The Appellant, James Russell Trimble, was convicted and sentenced in 1982 for crimes committed when he was a few months shy of his 18th birthday. In 2022, he filed a Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to JUVRA in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, which was ultimately denied.

Trimble presents the following questions on appeal:

1. Did the circuit court misapply [JUVRA] when it denied Mr. Trimble’s motion for reduction in sentence based primarily on the severity of the offense without meaningful consideration of Mr. Trimble’s demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation?

2. Did the circuit court misapply the first statutory factor, "the individual’s age at the time of the offense," when it considered being 17 years and approximately 8 months old at the time of the offense to be an aggravating factor?

3. Did the circuit court fundamentally misunderstand the significance of the decades-old diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, and erroneously assume that this was permanent and unremitting regardless of the many positive things Mr. Trimble has done since?

For the following reasons, we answer each question in the negative and affirm the circuit court’s denial of Trimble’s motion for reduction of sentence.

BACKGROUND

A. Trimble’s Conviction

Trimble was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree sexual offense, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of sexual assault in 1982. In a prior appeal, the Supreme Court of Maryland stated the facts underlying Trimble’s convictions as follows:

On July 3, 1981, Melanie Rae Newsom and the murder victim, Nila Kay Rogers, were invited by a friend from school to ride around in a van with some of his friends. The two women entered the van with the friend, James Hanna. Inside were Trimble, Terry Evans, Joseph Evans and Anthony Kordell. The Evans brothers, Trimble and Kordell had earlier taken various drugs and drunk beer.

After Newsom and Rogers entered the van, Trimble tried to kiss Newsom. She resisted. He screamed and began to tear off her clothing. Rogers tried to stop him, but Trimble punched her and threw her in the back of the van. He then hit Newsom and forced her to commit fellatio. The two women persuaded the men to stop the van. Hanna and Newsom went into a cornfield. Back in the van Trimble and Joseph Evans raped Rogers. As Kordell tried to pull Rogers out of the van, Trimble repeatedly struck her with a baseball bat. Trimble then dragged her into the cornfield and slit her throat from ear to ear. He left her body in the cornfield where she was later pronounced dead. The cause of death was listed as severe head injuries from a blunt object.

At trial, Trimble offered insanity as his only defense. A state’s expert testified that Trimble suffered from antisocial personality and a history of substance abuse but that Trimble was not insane because he did not lack substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law under the then prevailing insanity standard of Maryland Code (1982) § 12-107 of the Health-General Article. Another state expert concurred. The first expert further testified that Trimble had a below normal I.Q. of 64 but that that factor did not impair his sanity. The only defense witness testified that Trimble’s afflictions caused him to lack substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the law, but the doctor declined to state that conclusion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability.

The jury rejected Trimble’s insanity defense and found him guilty. Trimble waived his right to be sentenced by a jury and was sentenced to death by the trial judge.

Trimble v. State, 321 Md. 248, 253-54, 582 A.2d 794 (1990) (footnote omitted).

The Supreme Court of Maryland upheld his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Trimble v. State, 300 Md. 387, 478 A.2d 1143 (1984), but later vacated his death sentence after concluding he was improperly advised of his right to be sentenced by a jury. Trimble, 321 Md. at 264, 582 A.2d 794. On remand, Trimble was resentenced to a consecutive life sentence that was upheld on appeal. Trimble v. State, 90 Md. App. 705, 603 A.2d 899 (1992). At the time of the offense, Trimble was approximately 17 years and 8 months old.

B. JUVRA Motion for Sentence Reduction

Trimble filed a motion for a reduction of sentence under JUVRA on February 8, 2022.¹ The circuit court held a hearing on the motion on October 27, 2022. Trimble presented evidence of a 2020 psychological evaluation and testimony from a child forensic psychiatry expert that explained antisocial personality disorder ("ASPD"), a diagnosis Trimble had received when he was originally sentenced. Trimble also presented evidence that, while in prison, he received his high school equivalency diploma and a bachelor’s degree, worked in the prison library and as a tutor, and had not received an infraction in 20 years.

The circuit court denied Trimble’s motion for sentence reduction on November 23, 2022, by written opinion as required by CP Section 8-110(e). The court considered all of the evidence presented and assessed each factor required by Section 8-110(d) before concluding that Trimble would present a substantial risk to the public if released and that reducing his sentence would not serve the interests of justice.

Trimble timely appealed the denial to this Court. Further details of the hearing and court’s order will be provided as needed.

DISCUSSION

In 2021, the General Assembly passed JUVRA in response to recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court concerning the incarceration of juveniles who commit crimes. In Graham v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a sentence of life without parole for nonhomicide crimes was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. 560 U.S. 48, 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). In Miller v. Alabama, the Court held that a mandatory life sentence without parole was unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. 567 U.S. 460, 465, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). The U.S. Supreme Court extended Miller’s, holding in Montgomery v. Louisiana, concluding that Miller applied retroactively and allowing states to remedy now-unconstitutional sentences by offering the possibility of parole to people sentenced to life without parole as juveniles. Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 212, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016).

In response to these federal Supreme Court decisions, Senator Chris West introduced Maryland’s JUVRA legislation (Senate Bill 494, 2021 Session) and submitted written testimony stating that the bill

will provide an opportunity for people who have committed crimes when they were 17 years old or younger and who have served most of their lives behind bars to appear before the sentencing court and ask the court to consider whether they have so reformed their lives that they should be released from jail because their continued incarceration is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. People can change. Redemption is possible. When that happens, as a society we should rejoice. Keeping someone in prison who committed a youthful crime and who has spent decades in jail but has transformed [them] life and is no longer a threat to society is hard to defend.

Senator Chris West, RE: S.B. 494 - Juveniles Convicted as Adults - Sentencing - Limitations and Reduction (Juvenile Restoration Act), Hearing on Senate Bill 494 Before the Jud. Proc. Comm. of the Senate, 2021 Leg., 442d Sess. (Md. 2021) (written testimony of Senator Chris West) (hereinafter "Senator West Testimony").

As the Maryland Supreme Court has explained, JUVRA brought Maryland into compliance with these federal cases by "ma[king] three significant changes to Maryland’s sentencing practices for juvenile offenders convicted as adults." Malvo v. State, 481 Md. 72, 85, 281 A.3d 758 (2022). First, JUVRA "gave sentencing courts discretion to impose sentences less than the minimum required by law." Id. Second, it prospectively banned sentences of life without the possibility of parole. Id. Third, JUVRA "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." Id. Only the final provision authorizing a motion to reduce a sentence is relevant in this case.

CP Section 8-110(c) allows a court to "reduce the duration of a sentence imposed on an individual for an offense committed when the individual was a minor," provided that the court determine that "the individual is not a danger to the public" and "the interests of justice will be better served by a reduced sentence." CP Section 8-110(d) requires a circuit court to consider the following factors when ruling on a JUVRA motion to reduce a sentence:

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

(2) the...