Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 9-A (2026)

Allegation of prior conviction when sentence enhanced

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Except as otherwise provided by law, a prior conviction must be specially alleged if the sentencing provision of a crime requires that a present sentence be enhanced because the person has been previously convicted of a specified crime. For the purpose of this section, a sentence is enhanced only if the maximum sentence that may be imposed is increased or a mandatory minimum nonsuspendable sentence must be imposed. The Supreme Judicial Court shall provide by rule the manner of alleging the prior conviction in a charging instrument and conditions for using that prior conviction at trial.  
[PL 1999, c. 196, §2 (NEW).]
2.  Proof that the name and date of birth of the person charged with the current principal offense are the same as those of the person who has been convicted of the prior offense gives rise to a permissible inference under the Maine Rules of Evidence, Rule 303 that the person charged with the current principal offense is the same person as that person convicted of the prior offense.  
[PL 2001, c. 383, §3 (AMD); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
3.  Prior convictions may be considered for purposes of enhancing a present sentence if the date of each prior conviction precedes the commission of the offense being enhanced by no more than 10 years, except as otherwise provided by law. More than one prior conviction may have occurred on the same day. The date of conviction is deemed to be the date that the sentence is imposed, even though an appeal was taken.  
[PL 2001, c. 383, §4 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
4.  Proof of the date stated in a complaint, information, indictment or other formal charging instrument gives rise to a permissible inference under the Maine Rules of Evidence, Rule 303 that such a date is the date the offense was committed, notwithstanding the use of the words "on or about" or the equivalent. The convictions of 2 or more prior offenses that were committed within a 3-day period are considered a single conviction for purposes of this section.  
[PL 2001, c. 383, §4 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1999, c. 196, §2 (NEW). PL 2001, c. 383, §§3,4 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2003–2020 · leading case: State v. Stevens, 2007 ME 5 (Me. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stevens, 2007 ME 5 (Me. 2007). · cites it 4× “The issue in this case involves the interpretation of section 2411(1 — A)(D)(2), which does not contain a time limitation on the use of prior convictions, in relation to 17-A M.R.S. § 9-A(3) (2005), which imposes a ten-year limitation on the use of prior convictions to enhance a…”
State of Maine v. Troy D. Hastey, 2018 ME 147 (Me. 2018). “Under either alternative, however, the record of conviction will provide a sufficient basis for the State to prove, in a subsequent prosecution under section 2411, that Hastey's prior conviction involved or resulted from operating under the influence without resort to extrinsic…”
State v. Averill, 2005 ME 83 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “, 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 9-A, 1252(4), (4-A), (4-B), (4-C), (4-D), (5), (5-A), 1256 (1983 & Supp.”
State v. Hodgkins, 2003 ME 57 (Me. 2003). “See, for example, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 9-A(l) (Supp.2002), which states: Except as otherwise provided by law, a prior conviction must be specially alleged if the sentencing provision of a crime requires that a present sentence be enhanced because the person has been previously…”
State of Maine v. Stephen A. Treadway, 2020 ME 127 (Me. 2020). “See also 17-A M.R.S. § 9-A (2020) (listing certain requirements for a prior conviction to be used to enhance a sentence, such as that the prior conviction be “specifically alleged” and that the prior conviction “precede[] the commission of the offense being enhanced by no more…”
State v. Nugent, 2007 ME 44 (Me. 2007). “17-A M.R.S. §§ 9-A(l), 32 (2006); see also State v.”
State v. Cain, 888 A.2d 276 (Me. 2006). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 9-A(l) (Supp.2004); M.R.Crim.”
State v. Stevens, 953 A.2d 1135 (Me. 2008). · cites it 2× “He argued that, based on 17-A M.R.S. § 9-A (2007), the State was prevented from using his prior conviction because it occurred more than ten years before his instant alleged criminal activity.”
State of Maine v. Troy D. Hastey, 2018 ME 147 (Me. 2018). “22 That the sentence enhancer in section 2411 is based on a prior conviction is further supported by its reference to 17-A M.R.S. § 9-A (2017), which requires that the State plead the existence of a prior conviction to be used as a sentence enhancer.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 9-A(3) — 2 cases
State v. Stevens, 2007 ME 5 (Me. 2007). “The issue in this case involves the interpretation of section 2411(1 — A)(D)(2), which does not contain a time limitation on the use of prior convictions, in relation to 17-A M.R.S. § 9-A(3) (2005), which imposes a ten-year limitation on the use of prior convictions to enhance a…”
State v. Stevens, 953 A.2d 1135 (Me. 2008). “He argued that, based on 17-A M.R.S. § 9-A (2007), the State was prevented from using his prior conviction because it occurred more than ten years before his instant alleged criminal activity.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 9-A(l) — 3 cases
State v. Hodgkins, 2003 ME 57 (Me. 2003). “See, for example, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 9-A(l) (Supp.2002), which states: Except as otherwise provided by law, a prior conviction must be specially alleged if the sentencing provision of a crime requires that a present sentence be enhanced because the person has been previously…”
State v. Nugent, 2007 ME 44 (Me. 2007). “17-A M.R.S. §§ 9-A(l), 32 (2006); see also State v.”
State v. Cain, 888 A.2d 276 (Me. 2006). “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 9-A(l) (Supp.2004); M.R.Crim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.