subject: Maryland Second Degree Rape Burglary Statutes Sex Crime Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] ROLAND LOUIS FENWICK vROLAND LOUIS FENWICK v. STATE OF MARYLAND
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
November 8, 2000, Filed
Roland Louis Fenwick, appellant, broke into his estranged girlfriend's residence and raped her. He was convicted of second degree rape, in violation of Maryland. Code Ann. Art. 27, 463, and fourth degree burglary, in violation of Maryland. Code Ann. Art. 27, 32. He received consecutive sentences.
Appellant's challenge to his fourth degree burglary sentence is predicated upon his comparison of the first degree rape statute with the second degree rape and fourth degree burglary statutes.
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in imposing separate, consecutive sentences for second degree rape and fourth degree burglary?
Discussion:
Appellant has mischaracterized theburglary sentence as an enhancement of the rape sentence. In a multi-count conviction, a shorter sentence for one offense is not an enhancement of a longer sentence for another offense. Thus, the sentence for fourth degree burglary is not an enhancement of the sentence for second degree rape. Rather than challenging improper sentence enhancements, appellant is actually seeking to have his consecutive sentence for fourth degree burglary merged into his second degree rape sentence. As the Legislature created them, the offenses of fourth degree burglary and second degree rape are two separate crimes under the required evidence test. In contrast to the first degree rape statute, neither section 32 nor section 463 refers to or incorporates any other offense. Each statute addresses different criminal behavior based on distinctly different acts. Second degree rape requires proof of nonconsensual intercourse. Fourth degree burglary requires proof of breaking and entering. The two crimes involve completely different criminal acts that do not overlap. Thus, they are clearly separate crimes under the required evidence test.
We hold that fourth degree burglary and second degree rape are separate and parallel offenses for which separate and parallel convictions and sentences may be imposed. The jury had ample evidence upon which to convict appellant on both charges, and the trial court had discretion to impose separate and consecutive sentences. It did not err in doing so.
Conclusion:
The trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences for the crimes of which defendant was convicted was affirmed as conviction of one crime, fourth degree burglary, was not intended to be an enhancer of the sentence for the other crime, second degree rape. There was also no requirement for merger of the sentences under the required evidence test or the rule of lenity.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Maryland Second Degree Rape Burglary Statutes Sex Crime Lawyers Attorneys
