LIBBY v. STATE, 2007 ME 80

926 A.2d 724

Shaun P. LIBBY v. STATE of Maine.

No. Docket: Cum-06-511.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.Argued: May 22, 2007.
Decided: July 5, 2007.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Cumberland County, Wheeler, J.

Stuart Tisdale, Esq. (orally), Tisdale Davis, P.A., Portland, for plaintiff.

G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General, Donald W. Macomber, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Augusta, for State.

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, LEVY, SILVER, and MEAD, JJ.

MEAD, J.

[¶ 1] This case raises the constitutionality of the State’s murder sentencing procedures in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435
(2000), and its progeny,[1] and our decision in State v. Schofield, 2005 ME 82, 895 A.2d 927. Libby appeals a judgment of the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Wheeler, J.) summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction review. Libby argues that the trial court failed to apply the holdings of Apprendi and Schofield, which recognize the existence of a Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.[2] We conclude that the holdings

Page 725

of Apprendi and Schofield do not apply to the current murder sentencing statutes and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition.

I. BACKGROUND [¶ 2] In April 1998, Libby fatally shot Paul Batchelder while robbing a gas station in Gorham. Libby pleaded guilty to one count of murder,[3] 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(1)(A) (1983).[4] Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1251 (Supp. 1999), a person convicted of murder may be sentenced anywhere from a minimum of twenty-five years to a maximum of life in prison.[5]

[¶ 3] At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court employed the sentencing analysis established i State v. Hewey, 622 A.2d 1151 (Me. 1993), codified at 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C (2006), and ordered that Libby be imprisoned for a period of forty years.[6] In setting Libby’s sentence, the court made several findings of fact regarding the seriousness of the offense, and aggravating and mitigating factors.[7]

Page 726

[¶ 4] Libby filed, pro se, a petition for post-conviction review pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 2131(1) (2006) and M.R.App.P. 19, on the grounds that Maine’s murder sentencing statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1251, and the Hewey sentencing procedure, 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C, violate his Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, any facts that may increase his sentence of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum as found in Apprendi and its progeny, and in Schofield.

[¶ 5] The trial court summarily dismissed Libby’s petition for post-conviction review and his subsequent motion for re consideration. This appeal followed.[8]

II. DISCUSSION [¶ 6] The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees all criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. U.S. CONST, amend. VI. I Apprendi the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees an accused the right to have “any fact [other than that of a prior conviction] that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum . . . submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The Supreme Court noted, however, that “nothing . . . suggests that it is impermissible for judges to exercise discretion — taking into consideration various factors relating both to offense and offender — in imposing a judgment within the range prescribed by statute.”[9] Id. at 481, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis in the original).

[¶ 7] In State v. Schofield, 2005 ME 82, 895 A.2d 927, we considered the effect of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi and its progeny on the State’s since-repealed, two-tier sentencing statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1252(2)(A) (Supp. 2001).[10] Schofield, convicted of the Class A crime of manslaughter, was sentenced to twenty-eight years in prison upon a finding by the court by a preponderance of the evidence that her actions were of the most heinous and violent crimes against a person. Schofield, 2005 ME 82, ¶¶5-9, 895 A.2d at 929-30. In vacating Schofield’s sentence, we held that the Sixth Amendment encompasses a right to have a “fact-finder of her

Page 727

choice, judge or jury, determine beyond a reasonable doubt” any specific finding of fact that would result in a sentence enhancement into a new statutory range. Id. ¶¶ 20-21, 895 A.2d at 933.

[¶ 8] In State v. Miller, 2005 ME 84, ¶ 1, 875 A.2d 694, 695, we affirmed a sentence for illegal importation of scheduled drugs against a similar Apprendi challenge. Miller, convicted of importing heroin into the state, was sentenced to four years in prison, one year less than the statutory maximum of five years. Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 13, 875 A.2d at 696-97. Miller challenged the sentence, arguing that pursuant to Apprendi and its progeny, a jury must find any facts used by the court in setting his sentence Id. ¶ 10, 875 A.2d at 696. We affirmed the sentence, concluding that Apprendi applied only to those facts used to increase “the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” for the offense charged Id. ¶ 12, 875 A.2d at 696 (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). We found that because Miller’s sentence was less than the statutory maximum, Apprendi was not implicated and his Sixth Amendment rights had not been violated.[11] Id. ¶¶ 13-14, 875 A.2d at 697. In doing so, we concluded that “Miller had no legal right to a sentence of less than [the prescribed statutory maximum].”Id. ¶ 14, 875 A.2d at 697.

[¶ 9] Libby contends that 17-A M.R.S. § 1251 creates a statutory minimum sentence of twenty-five years for murder and that the Apprendi and Schofield decisions should be read as recognizing a constitutional right to have a jury find, beyond a reasonable doubt, any fact that would warrant sentencing an individual, who has pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of murder beyond the statutory minimum of twenty-five years.

[¶ 10] Libby misapprehends both Apprendi an Schofield in his attempt to apply their holdings to Maine’s current murder sentencing scheme. Both cases recognize the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to have a jury find, beyond a reasonable doubt, any facts that have the effect of increasing the sentence beyond a statutory maximum.
Unlike Apprendi and Schofield, the factual findings made by the court in the case at hand did not have the effect of increasing Libby’s sentence beyond the maximum statutory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Rather, the court, employing these factual findings, arrived at a sentence of forty years, well within the statutory sentencing range. As we noted in Miller, the holdings of Apprendi
and Schofield do not apply when, as here, the court makes findings of fact and invokes its discretion in sentencing a criminal defendant within the prescribed statutory range.[12]

[¶ 11] Libby’s contention that, by virtue of his plea agreement, he is entitled to a presumptive or benchmark sentence of the statutory minimum of twenty-five years is likewise unavailing. As we noted

Page 728

in Miller, a criminal defendant has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a sentence less than the prescribed statutory maximum. Miller, 2005 ME 84, ¶14, 875 A.2d at 697. Maine law prescribes a single, finite range of sentences in murder cases, within which a court may impose an appropriate sentence without making any additional specific factual findings. In this way, the State’s current murder sentencing structure is fundamentally different than the two-tier sentencing structure deemed unconstitutional i Schofield.

[¶ 12] Accordingly, because Apprendi an Schofield do not apply to Libby’s sentence, his petition for post-conviction review fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and was properly summarily dismissed.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.