# Miles v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · September 20, 2011 · 421 Md. 596

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753981

## Case

- **Full name:** Jody Lee MILES v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** September 20, 2011
- **Citations:** 421 Md. 596; 28 A.3d 667; 2011 Md. LEXIS 570
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** Bell, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Murphy, Raker, Cathell
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753981

## Opinion text

RAKER, J., dissenting, joined by BELL, C.J., and GREENE, J.
I would grant appellant’s Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345 and grant appel *608 lant a new sentencing proceeding. I would hold that the portion of § 2—303(i) that appellant now challenges, and that provides that the punishment shall be death if the sentencing authority finds that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, violates the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. I would sever the unconstitutional portion of the statute, require the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to be applied as a matter of law, vacate appellant’s sentence of death imposed pursuant to § 2—303(i), and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
Under the circumstances, I rely upon the reasons stated in my previous dissents in the cases of Oken v. State, 378 Md. 179 , 835 A.2d 1105 (2003), and Borchardt v. State, 367 Md. 91 , 786 A.2d 631 (2001), and Judge McAuliffe’s dissenting and concurring opinion in Evans v. State, 304 Md. 487, 539 , 499 A.2d 1261, 1288 (1985). I rely also upon the United States Supreme Court cases of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 , 127 S.Ct. 856 , 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and the state Court cases of People v. Montour, 157 P.3d 489, 496 (Colo. 2007), State v. Rizzo, 266 Conn. 171 , 833 A.2d 363, 393 (2003), Johnson v. State, 118 Nev. 787 , 59 P.3d 450, 460 (2002), State v. Papasavvas, 163 N.J. 565 , 751 A.2d 40, 75-76 (2000), State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 473 N.E.2d 264, 304 (1984), State v. Odom, 336 S.W.3d 541, 571 (Tenn.2011), State v. Lafferty, 20 P.3d 342, 376 (Utah 2001), and Olsen v. State, 67 P.3d 536, 574-75 (Wyo.2003).
I cannot fathom authorizing the imposition of the death penalty based on a determination that death is “more likely than not ” the appropriate sentence. That is exactly what the plain language of the Maryland Death Penalty statute permits and what the majority of this Court endorses. To me, such a *609 standard violates the United States Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge BELL and Judge GREENE join in the views expressed in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753981. Public record. Not legal advice.