merger of offenses for sentencing purposes doctrine (Maryland) · Go Syfert
← Maryland issues

merger of offenses for sentencing purposes doctrine in Maryland

7 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Abeokuto v. Stategreen
md · 2006 · cited in 5 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2007–2015
2 sentences

2015The State points out that, besides the bottle found underneath the table in which methamphetamine was being “cooked,” two bottles were found on the back porch containing a “powder” and another bottle was found in the kitchen placed upside down in another container. 4 The State, therefore, maintains that “the two offenses did not grow out of the same act or transaction” and, as such, merger is not appropriate. “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeopardy Clause *416 of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applicable to state c

2015The State points out that, besides the bottle found underneath the table in which methamphetamine was being “cooked,” two bottles were found on the back porch containing a “powder” and another bottle was found in the kitchen placed upside down in another container. 4 The State, therefore, maintains that “the two offenses did not grow out of the same act or transaction” and, as such, merger is not appropriate. “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeopardy Clause *416 of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applicable to state c

15
Dixon v. Stategreen
md · 2001 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2006–2011
2 sentences

2008Appellant argues that the trial court’s failure to merge the sentence for false imprisonment into the sentence for the second-degree sexual offenses was erroneous “because the facts supporting the false imprisonment claim were part and parcel of the evidence underlying the sexual assault conviction.” *98 “The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applicable to state court proceedings via the Fourteenth Amendment.” Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 352-53 , 893 A.2d 1018 (2006) (cit

2008Appellant argues that the trial court’s failure to merge the sentence for false imprisonment into the sentence for the second-degree sexual offenses was erroneous “because the facts supporting the false imprisonment claim were part and parcel of the evidence underlying the sexual assault conviction.” *98 “The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applicable to state court proceedings via the Fourteenth Amendment.” Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 352-53 , 893 A.2d 1018 (2006) (cit

14
Jones-Harris v. Stategreen
mdctspecapp · 2008 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2015
2 sentences

2015The State points out that, besides the bottle found underneath the table in which methamphetamine was being “cooked,” two bottles were found on the back porch containing a “powder” and another bottle was found in the kitchen placed upside down in another container. 4 The State, therefore, maintains that “the two offenses did not grow out of the same act or transaction” and, as such, merger is not appropriate. “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeopardy Clause *416 of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applicable to state c

2015The State points out that, besides the bottle found underneath the table in which methamphetamine was being “cooked,” two bottles were found on the back porch containing a “powder” and another bottle was found in the kitchen placed upside down in another container. 4 The State, therefore, maintains that “the two offenses did not grow out of the same act or transaction” and, as such, merger is not appropriate. “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeopardy Clause *416 of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applicable to state c

13
Purnell v. Stategreen
md · 2003 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2015
2 sentences

2015The Double Jeopardy Clause “provides the criminally accused with protection from, inter alia, multiple punishment stemming from the same offense.” Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678, 691 , 827 A.2d 68 (2003).

2015The Double Jeopardy Clause “provides the criminally accused with protection from, inter alia, multiple punishment stemming from the same offense.” Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678, 691 , 827 A.2d 68 (2003).

13

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Brown v. HANDGUN PERMIT green
md · 2008
2 sentences

2015The State points out that, besides the bottle found underneath the table in which methamphetamine was being “cooked,” two bottles were found on the back porch containing a “powder” and another bottle was found in the kitchen placed upside down in another container. 4 The State, therefore, maintains that “the two offenses did not grow out of the same act or transaction” and, as such, merger is not appropriate. “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeopardy Clause *416 of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applicable to state c

2011It emphasizes that “[cjonspiracy ... is not ‘part and parcel’ of the substantive crime of murder.” Rather “[cjonspiracy to commit murder is a separate offense, for which the legislature intended a separate sentence.” The State argues that “[p]rin-ciples of fundamental fairness do not trump the clear legislative intent to permit separate sentences.” This Court recently addressed principles of merger in, Moore v. State, 198 Md.App. 655, 684-85 , 18 A.3d 981 (2011), where Judge Woodward explained: “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeop

32011–2015
JUNGO v. State green
md · 2008
2 sentences

2015The State points out that, besides the bottle found underneath the table in which methamphetamine was being “cooked,” two bottles were found on the back porch containing a “powder” and another bottle was found in the kitchen placed upside down in another container. 4 The State, therefore, maintains that “the two offenses did not grow out of the same act or transaction” and, as such, merger is not appropriate. “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeopardy Clause *416 of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applicable to state c

2011It emphasizes that “[cjonspiracy ... is not ‘part and parcel’ of the substantive crime of murder.” Rather “[cjonspiracy to commit murder is a separate offense, for which the legislature intended a separate sentence.” The State argues that “[p]rin-ciples of fundamental fairness do not trump the clear legislative intent to permit separate sentences.” This Court recently addressed principles of merger in, Moore v. State, 198 Md.App. 655, 684-85 , 18 A.3d 981 (2011), where Judge Woodward explained: “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeop

32011–2015
Moore v. State green
mdctspecapp · 2011
2 sentences

2011It emphasizes that “[cjonspiracy ... is not ‘part and parcel’ of the substantive crime of murder.” Rather “[cjonspiracy to commit murder is a separate offense, for which the legislature intended a separate sentence.” The State argues that “[p]rin-ciples of fundamental fairness do not trump the clear legislative intent to permit separate sentences.” This Court recently addressed principles of merger in, Moore v. State, 198 Md.App. 655, 684-85 , 18 A.3d 981 (2011), where Judge Woodward explained: “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeop

2011It emphasizes that “[cjonspiracy ... is not ‘part and parcel’ of the substantive crime of murder.” Rather “[cjonspiracy to commit murder is a separate offense, for which the legislature intended a separate sentence.” The State argues that “[p]rin-ciples of fundamental fairness do not trump the clear legislative intent to permit separate sentences.” This Court recently addressed principles of merger in, Moore v. State, 198 Md.App. 655, 684-85 , 18 A.3d 981 (2011), where Judge Woodward explained: “ ‘The doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing purposes is premised in part on the Double Jeop

12011–2011
Blockburger v. United States green
scotus · 1931
2 sentences

2007To determine whether one offense merges into another, Maryland courts apply the “required evidence” test derived from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

2007To determine whether one offense merges into another, Maryland courts apply the “required evidence” test derived from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

12007–2007

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check