Dawnta Harris v. State , No. 1515, September Term, 2019, Opinion by Graeff, J.

CRIMINAL LAW

— FELONY MURDER

— MANSLAUGHTER BY VEHICLE

— PREEMPTION Relying on State v. Gibson , 4 Md. App. 236 (1969) , and Blackwell v. State , 34 Md. App. 547 (1977) , appellant argues that the manslaughter by vehicle statute, now codified as Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law Article § 2

- 209 (2012 Repl. Vol.) , preempts a charge of common law felony murder when a motor vehicle is involved

. Gibson and Blackwell found preemption in situations involving “unintended homicides resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.” Felony murder, however, is not an unintended homicide. To be sure, intent to kill is not a required element of felony murder. For a homicid e to constitute murder, however, the homicide must be committed with malice, a mental state that includes an intent to do the “death

- producing act in the course of the commission, or attempted commission, of a felony.” U nder the felony

- murder rule, “the ma lice involved in the underlying felony is permitted to stand in the place of the malice that would otherwise be required with respect to the killing.” F elony murder is not, therefore, within the scope of an unintended homicide. Accordingly, felony murder is not preempted by the manslaughter by automobile statute when the homicide involves a motor vehicle.
CRIMINAL LAW

— JUVENILLE LIFE SENTENCING

— FELONY MURDER

— INDIVIDUALIZED CONSIDERATION

— CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT Pursuant to this Court’s deci sion in Hartless v. State , 241 Md. App. 77 (2019) , a sentencing court is not required to conduct an individualized hearing to consider a defendant’s “youth and all of its attendant circumstances ” before imposing a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole on a juvenile convicted of felony murder

. Appellant’s sentence of life with parole was not grossly disproportionate and did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment where his conduct, in driving over a person while fleeing the scene of a burglary, caused the person to lose her life.Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case No. 03

- K

- 18

- 002254
REPORTED
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL AP PEALS

OF MARYLAND
No. 1515 September Term, 20 19

______________________________________

DAWNTA HARRIS

v. STATE OF MARYLAND

______________________________________ Graeff , Kehoe , Zic, JJ.

______________________________________

Opinion by Graeff, J.

______________________________________ Filed: July 28, 2021On May 1, 2019, Dawnta Harris, appellant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit

Court for Baltimore County of first

- degree felony murder, first

- degree burglary, and t heft
less than $25,000

. These convictions were based on his actions on May 21, 201 8 , whe n he
struck and killed a Baltimore County Police officer with a stolen car during the commission of a burglary with three other individuals. Appellant, who was 16 years old at the time of the crime, was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole

. On appeal, appellant presents the following questions for this Court ’ s review , which we have rephrased slightly, as follows:
1. Has an uninten tional , common law felony murder that was perpetrated by the operation of a motor vehicle been p reempt ed by statute, thus precluding the common law offense from serving as a basis for a crime in Maryland ? 2. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion and commit a constitutional violation by declining to instruct the jury that , in determining the voluntariness of appellant’s statement to the police, it may consider as a factor whether there was denial of a parent at the juvenile’s interrogation? 3. Is an automatic life sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder, without consideration of the juvenile’s youth and attendant circumstances and penological justifications , unconstitutional under the Eight h Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? 4. Is the felony murder rule, as applied to juveniles, constitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment s ’ Due Process Clauses and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judg men t s of the circuit court.2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Factual History
O n May 18, 2018, Kirk Thomas arrived at his home on Linwood Avenue in Baltimore City to discover that it had been burglarized, and the spare key to his 2016 Jeep Wrangler was missing. He called the police, but just before they responded, another officer
arrived at his door to investigate a hit

- and

- run involving th at vehicle. He reported the
vehicle as stolen , but he had no personal knowledge of who took it

. Three days later, o n May 21, 2018, appellant , Darrell Ward, Derrick Matthews, and Eugene Genius skipped school and drove Mr. Thomas’ black Jeep Wrangler from Baltimore City to the Parkville area in Baltimore Coun ty

. 1 Several burglaries connected to a black Jeep occurred that afternoon. The first, at approximately 12:30 p.m., occurred on Ardmore Avenue. H ome surveillance video captured Mr. Genius stealing a package from a porch

. 2 A neighbor
observed a black Jeep at the residence and saw a person take the package

. A lthough the windows of the Jeep were “heavily tinted,” the neighbor could distinguish the silhouettes of four people in the Jeep as it drove by his home.

1 All four of the young men were juveniles at the time. Evidence adduced at trial showed that the license plates on the Jeep had been switched. The tags belonged to a van registered in East Baltimore, but the Jeep was registered with the MVA to Mr. Thomas.

2 Because appellant was not convicted of the theft at Ardmore Avenue or the burglary at Northwind Road, see infra , we need not recite those events in detail.3

An hour later, at approximately 1:30 p.m., a black Jeep was observed outside a
residence on Northwind Road

. The homeowner was not present at the time, bu t she called
th e police after she return ed home at approximately 4:00 p.m. and f ound her home “ransacked.” She reported several stolen items, including an “old gaming system,” a candlestick holder, jewelry, coins , a bottle of wine, and some snacks. 3 At approximately 1:50 p.m., Kristin Roller observed a black Jeep Wrangler parked on Linwen Way, and she saw a male individual that she did not recognize looking into one of the houses on the street

. S he took a pictur e of the Jeep with her cell phone and texted it
to the homeowners , who were not home at the time, to ask if they were expecting any
visitors . Th ey immediately called her back, and she called 911 when she observed two
additional individuals exit the rear o f the Jeep

. 4
The three individuals proceeded to walk around the sides of the house looking into windows, while a fourth individual remained in the Jeep

. Ms. Roller described them to the
911 dispatcher as “ African American kids

. ” While she was waiting inside for the police to

3 A shattered wall clock in the foyer was frozen at 1:35 p.m., suggesting that this was the time when the burglary occurr ed. A neighbor testified that he observed someone wearing an orange shirt standing outside the home by a “dark colored” Jeep in the driveway.

4 Ms. Roller testified that one of the individuals was wearing a bright, orange sweatshirt, another was wearing a white T

- shirt, and the third was wearing a black T

- shirt. Police subsequently extracted from her cell phone pictures that she had taken of the three individuals and the Jeep. The State introduced some of these photos at trial.4

arrive, she could see that they had entered the home

. Ms. Roller called 911 again and
witnessed the events described below from her window

. 5 At approximately 2: 1 0 p.m., Officer Amy Caprio of the Baltimore County Police Department responded to Linwen Way

. As she approached the Jeep, it drove away , but it soon returned to Linwen Way, which ended in a cul

- de

- sac. Officer Caprio positioned he r squad car s o it was partially blocking the exit to the cul

- de

- sac , and she got out of the car. The Jeep turned around at the end of the cul

- de

- sac and drove toward her. A s discussed in further detail , infra , Officer Caprio drew her service weapon as the car
continued to approach, pointed it at t he driver, and instructed him to stop and get out of the

car. The Jeep stopped inches in front of her , and she again yelled at the driver to get out. The driver’s door opened, and Officer Caprio stepped in front of the Jeep. The door to the Jeep closed slightly, and the n the Jeep accelerated , struck Officer Caprio , and dr ove away
. Officer Caprio fired one gun shot , which struck the front windshield of the Jee p
. 6

5 Ms. Roller called 911 t hree times; first to report the individuals out front, second to report that they were going around the sides of the house, and a third time to inform police that the individuals were inside the house.

6 The timing of Officer Caprio’s gunshot is somewhat unclear from the evidence presented at trial. Detective Barton testified that stills from the body

- worn camera footage showed gunpowder and smoke coming out of the gun after the Jeep accelerated towards h er the second time but before she fell to the ground. Ms. Roller initially testified that she heard the gunshot and then saw the Jeep drive off, but she then testified that the two events occurred “simultaneously.” On appeal, the State asserts that the b ody

- worn camera footage showed that appellant accelerated and struck her before she discharged her firearm. Appellant, however, contends that the gunshot was fired prior to accelerating. The resolution of this factual dispute does not affect the issues p resented to us on appeal.5

Bystanders, including Ms. Roller, rushed to the scene and attempted to administer first aid

. Paramedics transported Officer Caprio to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead

. Christopher S qu ires was sitting on h i s patio a short distance from Linwen Way whe n he observed a Jeep traveling quickly do wn his quiet street. He saw t he Jeep park behind a neighbor’s car , and he observed the driver, a thin African American male wearing a black sweatshirt, exit the vehicle and quickly walk away. Although he was unaware of the events that had just taken place on Linwen Way, Mr. Squires n otified the police because he could

see that the back window of the Jeep was damaged , and he thought it was suspicious that
someone would leave their car there without going into a house. H e subsequently observed
a bullet hole in the windshield on the driver’s side.
Officer Michael Deremiek was en route to the scene at Linwen Way when he observed “a teenaged b lack male casually walking down the sidewalk.” After arriving on the scene and hearing a description of the suspect from the neighbors , he suspec ted that the young man he passed on the street m ight have been involved . He went to look for the young man and saw him walking towards Belair Road and talking on a cell phone. Officer Deremiek got out of the car and began to approach him . He heard the y oung man, appellant, saying: “Where are you? Where are you?”
After some brief questioning, Officer Deremiek took appellant into custody. Officer
Deremiek seized a “small black grocery bag” of loose change from appellant’s person.6

Police then brought Mr. Squires to appellant’s location for a show

- up, and Mr. Squires identified appellant as the young man he had seen leave the Jeep on his street. 7
The p oli ce took appellant to headquarters , and at 3:30 p.m., they placed him in an
interview room. The p olice seized two cell phones, which contained calls and messages
from the other young men
. One of the phones was registered to Mr. Ward, and appellant stated that he bought it from Mr. Ward because his phone was broken. At approximately 6:30 p.m. , appellant was read his rights and signed the Miranda
waiver form

. Detective Alvin Barton , a member of the County Homicide Unit , interviewed appellant

. He did not attempt to contact appellant’s parents prior to the interview. Appellant did ask to make a phone call, but he did not request the presence of a parent or

an attorney , and he indicated that he understood each item on the Miranda waiver form as they were read to him

.

7 James Kolb, a neighbor on a nearby street, was sitting on his front porch when he saw three young men, subsequently identified as Mr. Matthews, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Genius, peering into empty houses shortly after 2:00 p.m. The you ng men ultimately left his street without entering the homes, but Mr. Kolb proceeded to follow them in his car because he thought that they were suspicious. As he was driving, Mr. Kolb also observed appellant walking down the road, but he did not make a co nnection between the three young men and appellant at the time. The young men subsequently were seen on surveillance cameras from various businesses at the Perry Hall Square shopping center off Belair Road. Detective Barton identified the young men on th e surveillance videos as Mr. Matthews, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Genius. The video showed the three individuals entering a taxicab. Police located the taxi driver, who testified that he picked up three young men at a Chinese restaurant in the shopping center an d transported them to Frederick Douglas High School in Baltimore City. The driver further testified that one of the young men repeatedly attempted to call someone and told the others: “He’s not answering the phone.” One of the individuals threw what appe ared to be a gun magazine out the window at some point during the ride.7

Appellant told Detective Barton that he was 16 year s old, he lived with this mother
and sister in Baltimore City , and he was in ninth grade at Francis M. Wood High School.
He said that he had spent the previous night at Mr. Ward’s house in East Baltimore and went to Baltimore County at approximately 8:30 a.m. that morning to visit his girlfriend. He remained at her house for “an hour or two,” and he was walking down the street toward
the 7

- 11 to call his cousin for a ride home when he wa s picked up by the police. Appellant initially claimed that he did not know anything about the Jeep. He then
stated that , while he was walking, he saw the Jeep parked near where he was stopped by police

. It was running , so he briefly got into the car , but he then noticed that the back
windshield was broken , and realizing it may have been stolen , he got out of the vehicle

. Appellant then changed his story

. He told Detective Barton that he was with Mr.
Ward and a mutual friend named Ke’andre at Mr. Ward’s house that morning

. Mr. Ward
left and came back with the Jeep and called for t hem to get in. A ppellant declined and
instead took the city bus with Ke’andre to Patterson High School.
After Ke’andre went into the school, appellant took the bus to a gas station on
Orleans Street , where he was approached again by Mr. Ward , who was in the Jeep with his
friend , Mr. Genius. Mr. War d again asked appellant if he wanted to get into the car

. A ppellant stated that he was skeptical at first , but Mr. Ward said that “his people ’ s had gave it to him,” so appellant did not question it further and got in the car

. W hen they8

stopped at another station for gas, Mr. Ward’s friend Derrick Matthews joined them in the Jeep , and the four young men drove north to Baltimore County

. 8
The young men eventually pulled up to a house . The other s got out, but appellant
remained in the ca r
. T he other individuals were gone for 10 to 15 minutes , and appellant was unsure what they were doing , but he knew they were doing something that they were

not “suppose[d] to be doing.” When they returned to the Jeep, Mr. Genius was carrying a
brown cardboard box containing alcohol bottles, and Mr. Matthews had a “little green bag.”
The young men also had taken a “little black bag” containing loose change. Appellant stated that Mr. Matthews then drove the Jeep to ano ther gas station approximately 10 minutes away and put gas in the car

. The young men , with Mr. Genius driving, then went to a second house on Linwen Way

. Mr. Genius and Mr. Matthews got

out , and Mr. Ward and appellant remained in the car. 9 The Jeep’s engine was turned off , but the key was in the ignition and the battery was on so he and Mr. Ward could listen to
the radio. Appellant told Detective Barton that he then told Mr. Ward: “Let’s go ba ck this time, because I don’t feel safe around here. . . . I don’t even know what ya’ll doing. Ya’ll just getting out and getting back in.” He stated : “If anything happened, we all could get

8 Appellant stated that he had only met Mr. Genius and Mr. Matthews once prior to these events, and they were friends of Mr. Ward. Appellant provided a description and photo identification of all three of these individuals during his interview with Detecti ve Barton.

9 Appellant stated that he stayed in the car when they stopped at both houses and did not go inside either house. The forensic evidence supported appellant’s statement that he did not physically enter either burglarized home.9

locked up for something.” Mr. Ward responded that he was not going to do anything

“ dumb ” to get himself “ locked up.”
Mr. Genius eventually c ame back to the car and got Mr. Ward , leaving appellant alone in the Jeep. While the other individuals we re in the house, appellant got out of the Jeep to stre tch his legs , and when he got back inside on the front passenger side , he hopped
over the center console into the driver’s seat and reclined the seat backwards so that he
could not be seen

. At some point while he was waiting , appellant stuck his head up and saw a Baltimore County Police car approaching him

. When the police car pulled up alongside him, he started the Jeep and drove off. The police car followed him while he did a U

- turn and
returned to Linwen Way

. He then observed a fe male police officer get out of the car and point a gun at him. Appellant described the following: [APPELLANT:] [T]hat’s when I had put my head down and closed my eyes. DETECTIVE: She’s saying something to you, right? [APPELLANT : ] Yeah.
DETECTIVE: What is she telling you? [APPELLANT:] I couldn’t really hear her. I did hear, “Get out of the car.” DETECTIVE: Okay. All right. Did you get out of the car at any point? [APPELLANT:] No, I was too scared to get out. DETECTIVE: Did you start to get out [of] t he car? [APPELLANT:] Yes, I did open the door. DETECTIVE: All right. Then what happened?10

[APPELLANT:] I was just too s ca red. I was paranoid, too paranoid, I didn’t know what to do. I just did whatever came to my head, which to

– at least, try to pull o ff. DETECTIVE: Okay. But she’s she’s [sic] blocking the road though. [APPELLANT:] Yeah, but not really blocked it, but kind of is. DETECTIVE: Like, explain it to me, I’m trying to understand. [APPELLANT:] When I went this way, the car is like this and I stop here so I had to go around and back. DETECTIVE: You were gonna go around it? [APPELLANT:] Yeah. DETECTIVE: Okay. All right. [APPELLANT:] The only reason I didn’t hear what she was saying because it was music playing a little bit

– DETECTIVE: Okay. All right. [APPELLANT:]

– and all the windows was rolled up. DETECTIVE: You heard her say, “Get out of the car.” You heard part of what she said. She’s got the road blocked, and had to maneuver to the right and then back around again to fit in the spot that she had left open? [APPELLANT:] Yeah, but when I put my head down and closed my eyes, I didn’t

– I didn’t move the wheel. Like, I just

– DETECTIVE: Well, you didn’t do that in the beginning. I mean you would have driven around in th e car at first with your eyes open, or you would have never made it. [APPELLANT:] Correct, yeah. DETECTIVE: Okay. [APPELLANT:] All I did was

–11

DETECTIVE: Then she’s in the way. [APPELLANT:] All I did was

– the car never got put back in park, it stayed in drive. So all I did was just put my head down because I had seen a gun that was pointed directly at me. DETECTIVE: Okay. [APPELLANT:] So, I had put my head down and I was just gripping the wheel

– the steering wheel, but I didn’t want to pull o f f or anything. I was just

– I don’t know, I was getting even scareder [sic], and I ain’t know what to do at all. DETECTIVE: Okay. [APPELLANT:] So, I had pulled straight off.
DETECTIV E: Well, did you stop when you hit her? [APPELLANT:] No, I didn’t even know I hit her. DETECTIVE: Well, you knew she was standing when you put your head down. [APPELLANT:] Yeah, I knew she was standing there, but I didn’t know I hit her.
DETECTIVE: Th at’s when you hit the gas, you just put your head down and didn’t look? [APPELLANT:] No, I didn’t look at anything. I was too scared to look, because I didn’t know if I was gonna crash, hit the police car or hit the police, I didn’t know if I was gonna ge t shot or not. Appella n t stated that , wh ile the gun was pointed at him and the officer was instructing him to get out, he “didn’t want anything bad to happen ,” and he “just wanted to go home.” He further stated that, after he hit the gas pedal, he heard the gun go off and thought he had been shot

. When he “hit the corner,” he did not know where to go , but he12

did not feel safe there, so he kept driving and abandoned the Jeep on a nearby street and
continued on foot

. 10 Appellant stated that he did not see the other three individuals again that day. 11
II. Procedural History On May 30, 2018, a ppellant was charged in the Circuit Court f o r Baltimore County
with first

- degree murder (count 1); with respect to Linwen Way, first

- , third

- , and fourth

degree burglary , conspiracy to commit first

- degree burglary , and theft of at least $1,500 but less than $25,0 0 0 (count s 2 through 6); with respect to Northwind Road, first

- , third

- , and fourth

- degree burglary , conspiracy to commit first

- degree burglary , and theft of at least $100 but less than $1,500 (counts 7 through 11); with respect to Ardmore Avenue, fourth

degree burglary and theft under $100 (counts 12 and 13); theft of at least $1,500 but less than $25,000 for the sto len Jeep Wrangler (count 14); theft under $100 for a stolen license plate (count 15); and related firearms charges (counts 16 through 19). A jury t rial commenced on April 22, 2019, and it continued for eight days. In addition to witness testimony discussed supra , a crime scene technician for the State
testified that the following items were recovered from the abandoned Jeep : clothing, a

10 The key to the Jeep was discovered on appellant’s person during the interview with Detective Barton.

11 Mr. Ward, Mr. Genius, and Mr. Matthews were taken into custody the following day. The record on appeal does not reflect their charges, but appellant proffered in his brief that those three young men pled guilty to felony murder and were given life sentences with all but 30 years suspended.13

cardboard box of electronics (including a Nintendo game system and 12 games ) , coins , a school folder labeled “ Eug ene Genius, ” alcohol bottles , and a package addressed to the
home on Ardmore Avenue. 12 The owner of the home on Linwen Way testified that a brick had been thrown through the glass door in the rear of his home. A pproximately $3,370 worth of items were stolen, including an X

- box, an Amazon Echo Dot, an Amazon Firestick, a laptop, two iPads, an Apple Watch, a backpack, and a handgun and two magazines.
Denise Wallace , a fingerprint examiner , testified that s he collec ted fingerprint samples from all four young men and compared them to the prints lifted from various
locations and items relevant to the burglaries

. Fingerprints from Mr. Matthews, Mr. Ward,
and Mr. Genius were found inside the Linwen Way house. A ppellant’s prints were not
found inside the home

. Appellant’s prints were present, however, inside the Jeep on the front driver’s side door and on one of the Nintendo games taken from Northwind Road. The prints from the other young men also were found in the Jeep.
Mr. Ward was wearing a GPS bracelet monitored by the Department of Juvenile Services on the day in question. An expert testified that , based on the GPS data, Mr. Ward

was present at Ardmore Avenue, Northwind Road, and Linwen Way around the time of the burglaries on May 21, 2018. C ell phone location data f rom the phones of Mr. Ward,
Mr. Genius , and Mr. Matthews corroborated their presence at these locations

.

12 The recovered clothing included a distinctive striped jacket that matched the one worn by Mr. Genius in surveillance video from t he gas station and the door camera at Ardmore Avenue.14

The video captured by Officer Caprio’s body

- worn camera at the time of the
incident was played for the jury and entered into evidence as State ’s Exhibit 27A

. The video showed that, a t 2:11 p.m., Officer Caprio’s body

- worn camera was activated as she
turned on to Linwen Way. She follow ed the Jeep, and just before the circle at the end of
the cul

- de

- sac, s he stop ped her car and g ot out. Officer Caprio position ed herself in the road adjacent to the left side of her squad car and in the direct path of the Jeep. As the Jeep turn ed around at the end of the cul

- de

- sac and c ontinue d to drive toward her, Officer Caprio dr ew her service weapon and point ed it toward the driver and repeatedly yell ed “stop. ” As the Jeep approache d , s he took a few steps backwards , and the Jee p stop ped an arm’s length in front of her

. In the video, Officer Caprio is heard yelling : “Stop, stop. Get out of the car. 10

- 3. Get out of the car. Get out of the car right now. Get out of
the f uc ki ng car. Get out of the car. Get out [.] ” As she gave this instruction, she move d laterally toward the back end of her squad car so that she wa s no longer squarely in front of the Jeep. The driver’s side door to the Jeep then opened , but no one g ot out. As the
door opened , she move d back toward the center of Jeep. 13
The video then sho w s t he car a dvanc ing toward her, the body

- worn cam era f all ing

to the pavement , and voices of bystanders calling for help and attempting to render aid. One bystander sa id : “That guy just ran her over.” The video shows the Jeep leaving the

13 Detective Barton testified that Officer Caprio likely stepped back in front of the Jeep to provide herself cover from the individual that appeared to be exiting the vehicle as the door opened.15

scene with the driver’s side door still open

. The driver of the vehicle is not visible at any point during the video.
The medical examiner testified that Officer Caprio’s cause of death was multiple injuries, including numerous fractured ribs, extensive lacerations of the liver, and hemorrhaging in various locations

. T hese injur i es were consistent with “being run over by
a vehicle

. ” The manner of death was ruled a homicide.
Detective Barton testified regarding the investigation and his interview with appellant on the evening of the arrest. The video of th at interview , which included appellant’s confession , discussed supra , was entered into evidence as State’s Exhibit 67

an d played for the jury. On cross

- examination, Detective Barton acknowledged that there

was no indication from his investigation that appellant planned the two burglaries or the package theft , or that appellant drove t he Jeep prior to his encounter with Officer Caprio

. Additionally, there was no evidence that appellant had stolen the Jeep from Mr. Thomas.
In closing argument, the State argued that the case against appellant on the burglary charges was based on his knowledge , complicity , and aid of the actions of the other young

men , either as a primary actor or , at the very least, as an accomplice. In that regard , the prosecutor highlighted that appellant’s fingerprints were f ound on some of the stolen items , and he was arrested with stolen change in his pockets.
With respect to the first

- degree felony murder charge, the State noted that it did not have to prove an intent to kill . Rather , it had to prove only that Officer Caprio was killed during the course of the burglary.16

Addressing the theft charge for the Jeep , the State argued that appellant “willfully and knowingly obtained and exerted unauthorize[d] control” over stolen property by “driving [the Jeep] f

rom location to location.” In support of its arguments, t he State re played numerous portions of the interview video. On May 1, 2019, the jury found appellant guilty of first

- degree felony murder, first

degree burglary of the home on Linwen Way, and theft of the Jeep. On August 21, 2019 , the court sentenced appellant to life in prison with the possibility of parole on the
conviction of first

- degree felony murder, 20 years (concurrent) on the conviction for first

degree burglary , and five years (concurrent) for theft

. 14 This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Preemption Appellant contends that his conviction for felony murder should be vacated because
the “misdemeanor manslaughter by automobile statute , ” Md. Code Ann., Crim inal Law
Article (“CR”) § 2

- 209 (2012 Repl. Vol. ) , “ preempts all unintended homicides committed by motor vehicle

. ” In support, a ppellant cites State v. Gibson , 4 Md. App. 236, aff’d , 254 Md. 399 (1969) , where this Court held that th e manslaughter by vehicle statute preempt ed
the common law offense of misdemeanor manslaughter by operation of a motor vehicle,
and all unintended homicides re sulting from the use of a vehicle , and Blackwell v. State ,

14 The c ourt noted that it would recommend that appellant be allowed to participate in the “Youthful Offender’s Program” at the Patuxent Institute.17

34 Md. App. 547, cert. denied , 280 Md. 728 (1977), in which we held that th e manslaughter by vehicle statute preempt ed second

- degree murder when the killing w as the unintended result of the operation of a motor vehicle. A ppellant urges this Court to “ extend the holdings of Gibson and Black well to the common law offense of felony murder by continuing to find that the statutory preemption applies to all u nintended homicides resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle. ”
A ppellant did not argue below that he could not be convicted of felony murder because he could be prosecuted only for a violation of the misdemeanor manslaughter
statute. H e argues , however, that the issue is preserved for appellate review because it
involves a challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which may be raised for the first time on appeal. Alternatively, he requests this Court to review the issue under the doctrine of plain error.
The State makes several arguments in support of its contention that appellant’s conviction of felony murder sho uld be affirmed. Initially, it argues that , because the issue was not raised below, it is not preserved for this Court’s review. Moreover, it argues that the common law felony murder doctrine was not preempted by the enactment of the manslaughter by vehi cle statute for three reasons. First, it asserts that the statute deals with the subject of “ unintentional homicide s” by motor vehicle . It argues that , because felony murder can occur whether death was intended or not, “felony murder does not fall within the ‘subject matter’ of ‘unintended homicides’” contemplated by the statute.18

Second, the State argues that the rationale for this Court’s decision in Gibson , 4 Md. App. at 246

– 47, interpreting the manslaughter by vehicle statute as preempting
common law m anslaughter was to prevent a “nonsensical incongruity” where a prosecuto r could choose to charge a person with the common law felony of manslaughter, with a ten

year penalty, or the statutory misdemeanor, with a three

- year penalty, even where the proof

to justify conviction was the same

. It contends that there is no such incongruity with felony murder, which is intended to deter individuals from engaging in a felony, and the manslaughter by vehicle statute , which “contemplates punishment only for the act o f dangerous driving.” Third, the State asserts that this Court must presume that the General Assembly did
not inten d to preempt the common law felony murder doctrine absent a clear legislative
intent to do so , and t here was no evidence of such intent here . Moreover, the State notes the illogical result that would occur in this case if appellant’s position was accepted . W here
the three co

- defendants pled guilty to felony murder, it would not make sense that appellant, the one who directly cause d the victim’s death, would avoid a murder conviction. Finally, t he State contends that, even if this Court accepts appellant’s argument that the manslaughter by vehicle statute preempted the common law felony murder doctrine where the killing was unintent ional, there was no preemption here because there was evidence that appellant intended to run over Officer Caprio. A ccordingly , the State argues
that i t could prosecute and convict appellant of felony murder. We first address the State’s argument that the issue of preemption is not preserved for appellate review because it was not raised in the circuit court. Generally, an appellate19

court will not address an issue not raised in or decided by the trial court. Lane v. State , 348 Md. 272, 278 (1997). Accord Md. Rule 8

- 131(a)

. One exception to this general rule of preservation , however, applies where the challenge is to the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction . Such a challenge may be brought at any time , even if it was not raised at trial , bec ause “where no cognizable crime is charged, the court lacks fundamental subject matter jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction, i.e., it is powerless in such circumstances to inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to declare the punishment f or an offense.”
Williams v. State , 302 Md. 787, 791

– 92 (1985). Accord Lane , 348 Md. at 278 (reviewing question of whether second

- degree rape of a spouse was a crime because “ a court may not validly enter a conviction on a charge that does not constitute a crime and . . . the deficiency in any such judgment is jurisdictional in nature” )

. In this case, appellant does not argue that first

- degree felony murder is not a cognizable crime

. It clearly is a cognizable crime, and appellant ’s reliance on subject matter jurisdiction as a basis to excuse his failure to raise the issue below is misplaced

. We conclude, however, that the issue is properly before this Court for a different
reason. I f appellant’s contention is correct, and the manslaughter by automobile statute preempted a charge of felony murder when the homicide was committed by motor vehicle, then appellant ’s argument that he should not have been charged, convicted, or sentence d
f o r the conviction of felony murder could be construed as an argument that he was given an illegal sentence. See Roary v. State , 385 Md. 217, 225

– 26 (2005) , overruled on other grounds by State v. Jones , 451 Md

. 680, 704 (2017) ( A “ sentence imposed under an entirely inapplicable statute is an illegal sentence which may be challenged at any time.” ). Accord20

Fisher v. State , 367 Md. 218, 239

– 40 (2011) (reviewing claim that felony murder doctrine is inapplicable to a homicide resulting from child abuse because, if true, the sentence imposed on the felony murder conviction would be an illegal sentence) ; Moosavi v. State , 355 Md. 651, 662 (1999) (“[W]here a defendant has been charged and co nvicted under an entirely inapplicable statute, but has not raised the issue on appeal, this Court has reviewed the issue on the theory that the resulting sentence under the inapplicable statute is an illegal sentence which may be challenged at any time.”)

. According ly , we will consider this issue , even though it was not raised below. Appellant argues that the manslaughter by vehicle statute, now codified as CR § 2

- 209, preempts a charge of felony murder when a motor vehicle is involved

. 15 In support,
he relies on Gibson and Blackwell , supra . In Gibson , 4 Md. App. a t 2 38

– 40 , this Court addressed whether the manslaughter by automobile statute (codified at the time a s § 3 8 8 of Article 27 of the Maryland Code (1967 Repl. Vol.) ) preempted the common law manslaughter offenses with which the

15 CR § 2

- 209 provides, in pertinent part: (a) In this section, “vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, streetcar, locom otive, engine, and train. (b) A person may not cause the death of another as a result of the person’s driving, operating, or controlling a vehicle or vessel in a grossly negligent manner. (c) A violation of this section is manslaughter by vehicle or vess el. (d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both.21

defendant was charged after he killed a woman while drunk driving. We answered that question in the affirmative , explain ing as follows: We believe that the Legislature in enacting Section 388 to punish persons who cause the death of another ‘as the result of the driving, operation or control of an automobile [. . .] in a grossly negligent manner,’ intended to treat all unintended homicides thereby resulting in the same way , without regard to whether the homicide occurred in the course of doing a lawful or an unlawful act, or whether such act was malum in se or merely malum prohibitum. To otherwise conclude would be to attribute an intention to the Legislature to permit the prosecution of offenders either for the felony of common law manslaughter, with its ten

- year penalty, or for the statutory misdemeanor of manslaughter by automobile, with its three

- year penalty, even though, where the pros ecution is based upon gross negligence, the proof necessary to justify a conviction in either case would be precisely the same (a wanton or reckless disregard to human life).

. . . We conclude, therefore, that in enacting Section 388, the Legislature inten ded to deal with an entire subject matter [

–– ] unintended homicides resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle [

–– ] and that the common law crime of involuntary manslaughter, when based on homicides so occurring, is in conflict with the statute and must y ield to it to the extent of the inconsistency.
Id. at 246

– 47 (emphasis added). The Court went on to state, however, that the manslaughter by automobile statute did not “abrogate the crime of manslaughter in those cases where the killing was accomplished by intentionally running over the victim in an
automobile. ” Id. at 248 n.5.
In Blackwell , 34 Md. App. at 555, this Court extended Gibson ’s preemption principle to apply to second

- degree murder involving a motor vehicle. In that case,
Blackwell killed a cyclist while driving drunk, and he was convicted of second

- degree
murder. Id. at 549. On appeal, this Court noted its prior holding in Gibson that, “ in enacting the manslaughter by automobile statute, the legislature intended to preempt the22

su bject matter of unintended homicides resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.”
Id. at 554 (citation omitted)

. W e then stated :

In the absence of evidence of intentional homicide, we hold that the statutory preemption applies as well to second deg ree murder as it did in [ Gibson ] to manslaughter. We hasten to add on the other hand, that under proper circumstances where the resultant death was intended, a conviction for murder may result, notwithstanding the use of an automobile as the instrumentality of death.
Id. at 555. Appellant urges this C ourt to extend th e preemption principle to felony murder
when it is committed using a motor vehicle. As noted, t he cases to which appellant cites found preemption in situation s involving “unint ended homicides resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle

. ” Blackwell , 34 Md. App. at 554 ; Gibson , 4 Md. App. at 247.
F elony murder , however, i s not an unintended homicide. To be sure, intent to kill is not a required element of felony murder. See State v.
Allen , 387 Md. 389, 398 (2005) (“[T]he State need not prove that the defendant intended to commit murder, it must establish that the defendant intended to commit the predicate felony.”) ; Whittlesey v. State , 326 Md. 502, 520

– 21 (“[A]n intent to kill is not a necessary element” of felony murder.) , cert. denied , 506 U.S. 894 (1992) ; Newton v. State , 280 Md. 260, 272 (1977) (“Once the State proves a killing during an enumerated felony, the offense of first degree murder is necessarily est ablished, regardless of any evidence relative to wilfulness, deliberation and premeditation.”)

. For a homicide to constitute murder, however, the homicide must be committed with malice, a mental state t h at includes an intent to do the “death

- producing act in the cour se of the commission, or attempted23

commission , of a felony. ” Selby v. State , 76 Md. App. 201, 210 (1988), aff’d , 319 Md. 174 (1990). A person acting with this intent is guilty of felony murder. Id. The Court of Appeals has explained that, under the felon y - murder rule, “the malice
involved in the underlying felony is permitted to stand in the place of the malice that would otherwise be required with respect to the killing.” Allen , 387 Md. at 402. Accord Charles E. Moylan, Jr., Criminal Homicide Law § 5.1 (2002). F elony murder is not , therefore, within the scope of unintended homicide s . Accordingly, felony murder is not preempted by the manslaughter by automobile statute when the homicide involves a motor vehicle.
Moreover , we note that, although appellant argues that the killing here was
unintentional , the jury in this case was not asked to , and it did not specify, whether it found an unintentional homicide. The State argued, and the facts would have permitted a finding, that appellant intended to run over Officer Ca p rio when he hit the gas while she was standing i n front of the car. Accordingly, we reject appellant’s argument that his felony
murder conviction should be vacated because the manslaughter by vehicle statute (CR § 2

- 209) preempt ed his felony murder conviction.
II. Jury Instruction Appellant’s next cont ention pertains to a requested jury instruction regarding parental notification when juvenil es are in police custody

. At trial, Detective Barton testified that he did not attempt to contact appellant’s parents after appellant was taken into custody and prior to the intervie w . A t the conclusion of all evidence, appellant’s trial
counsel requested a jury instruction tracki ng language in Md. Code Ann., Courts & Judicial24

Proceedings Article (“CJ”) § 3

- 8A

- 14(b) (20 13 Repl. Vol) , which provides that, “[i]f a law enforcement officer takes a child into custody, the officer shall immediately notify, or cause to be notified, the ch ild ’ s parents, guardian, or custodian of the action.” C ounsel argue d
that an instruction tracking this statute was necessary because it went to the voluntariness of appellant’s statements to Detective Barton during the interview. 16 The State argued that the instruction was not necessary because Maryland Pattern Jury Instruction (“MPJI

- CR”) 3:18 discussed all the factors the jury needed to consider to determine whether a statement was voluntary. It asserted that the statute cited by appellant “merely says the police should contact the parent,” and “it has nothing to do with state of mind of [appellant] or coercion.”
The circuit court denied appellant’s request for an additional instruction. It stated
that MPJI

- CR 3:18 “sufficiently quantified the issues in this case” with regard to appellant’s statements to police . It then instructed the jury consistent with that pattern instruction, as follows:
You ’ve heard evidence that the defendant made a statement to the police about the crime charged. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntarily made. A voluntary statement is one that under all circumstances was given freely. To be voluntary, a statement must not have been compelled or obtained as a result of any force, promise, threat, inducement or offer of reward. If you decide that the police used force , a threat , promise or inducement in obtaining D efendant ’s statement, then you must find that the statement was involuntary and disregard it, unles s the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the f orce , threat , p romise or

16 Appellant’s trial cou nsel proffered that he had suggested language for the requested special instruction, but he could not immediately locate it. He then stated that he wanted the language from CJ § 3

- 814.25

inducement did not in any way cause the D efendant to make the statement. If you do not exclude the statement for one of these reasons, you then must decide whether it was v oluntary under the circumstances. In deciding whether the statement was voluntary, consider all of the circumstances surrounding the statement, including the conversations, if any, between the police and the D efendant; whether the D efendant was advised o f his rights; the length of time that the D efendant was questioned; who was present; t he mental and physical condition of the D efendant; whether the D efendant was subjected to force or threat of force by the police; age, background, experience, education, character, and intelligence of the D efendant; and any other circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, then you must give it such weight as you believe it deserves. If you do not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, you must disregard it.
See MPJI

- C R 3:18. On appeal, a ppellant contends that the circuit court “ abused its discretion by failing to instruct the jury that it may consider whether there was a denial of a parent at the juvenile’s interrogation in determining whether [appellant’s] statement to the police was voluntary.” He asserts that the failure to so instruct deprived him “of due process and protection against self

- incrimin ation pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Articles 22 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.” He argues that the requested instruction was a correct statement of law , and it was not properly covered by the instruction provided because, although it instructed the jury to consider who was present in the interrogation, it did not inform the jury that it may consider “who was not present.” Appellant further contends that the requested instruction was26

“factually generated by ‘some evidence’” because Detective Barton testified that he did not inform appellant of his right to contact a parent

. The State contend s that this issue is not preserved for review. In any event, it argues
that the circuit court p roperly denied appellant’s request for the special instruction. We begin with the State’s preservation argument. Initially, the State notes that CJ § 3

- 814 , the statute cited below and on appeal, does not contain language regarding notification of parents , and it is inapplicable here because it refers solely to Child in Need
of Assistance (“CINA”) cases , not criminal cases. It asserts that the statute to which appellant seems to be referring is an older version of CJ § 3

- 814, which was renumbered

to CJ § 3

- 8A

- 14 in 2001. See 2001 Md. Laws , Ch. 415. Because appellant cited, both at trial and in his brief on appeal, the wrong statute, t he State a s s erts that appellant’s argument is technically unpreserved for review. See In re Kaleb K. , 390 Md. 502, 512 (2006) (Argument unpreserved because defense cited the wrong statute.). We are not persuaded. App ellant’s counsel merely miscited the statutory provision number. Because the substantive issue was raised and considered by the circuit court, we
will not tr eat this misstatement as a failure to preserve the issue. The State further argues, however, that the issue is not preserved for review because
the argument advanced on appeal, that the court erred in failing to give an instruction that the jury could cons ider that appellant was denied access to a parent, w as not made below. We agree. “Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any

. . . issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court.” Md. Rule 8

- 13 1(a).27

Accord Alston v. State , 414 Md. 92, 110

– 12 (2010) ( A rgument regarding jury instructions
was waived because it was not requested below.); Pitts v. State , 250 Md. App. 496, 528 (2021) ( Appellant who never requested jury instruction could not argue on appeal that the court should have given the instruction.). Here, appellant argued in the circuit court that the court should instruct the jury that the police are required to notify parents when a juvenile is taken into custody. That is different from an instruction advising that the jury could consider, in assessing voluntariness of a statement, that a juvenile was denied access to a parent prior to making
the statement. Accordingly, this issue i s not preserved for review.
Even if the issue w as preserved for review, we would conclude that it was without
merit. A trial court’s decision whether to give a jury instruction “ will not be disturbed except on a clear showing of an abuse of discretion , th at is, discretion manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.” State v. Sayles , 472 Md. 207, 230 (2021)

. Appellant has not made such a showing here. A trial court is required to give a specific instruction when “ ( 1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the requested instruction is applicable under the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the requested instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in jury instructions actually given.” Wright v. State , __ Md. __, No. 40, Sept

. Term 2020 , slip op. at 14 (filed July 13, 2021) (quoting Thompson v. State , 393 Md. 291, 302 (2006)

. An instruction regarding t he duty to contact a parent set forth in CJ § 3

- 8A

- 14(b) d id not meet those requirements because it is not a pplicable under the facts of this case. CJ § 3

- 8A

- 14(b) , which addresses children who are not CINAs, provides as follows:28

If a law enforcement officer takes a child into custody, the officer shall immediately notify, or cause to be notified, the child ’ s parents, guardian, or custodian of the action. After making every reasonable effort to give notice, the law enforcement officer shall with all reasonable speed:

(1) Release the child to the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian or to any o ther person designated by the court, upon their written promise to bring the child before the court when requested by the court, and such security for the child ’ s appearance as the court may reasonably require, unless the child ’ s placement in detention or shelter care is permitted and appears required by § 3

- 8A

- 15 of this subtitle; or (2) Deliver the child to the court or a place of detention or shelter care designated by the court.
In Jones v. State , 311 Md. 398, 400 (1988), the Court of Ap peals addressed whether CJ § 3

- 8A

- 14(b)’s parental notification requirement (codified at the time at CJ § 3

- 814(b)) applied to a juvenile arrested and charged with first

- degree murder. 17 Mr. Jones argued that the plain language and legislative intent of t he provision was appl ied to all juveniles taken into custody. Id. at 403

– 04. In rejecting this argument, the Court stated as follows:

Jones’s reading of [§ 3

- 8A

- 14] simply cannot be harmonized with its immediate context, for it creates a strained and ill ogical transition from the first sentence of [§ 3

- 8A

- 14(b)] to the second. The second sentence provides for the release of the child to its “parents, guardian, or custodian or to any other person designated by the court” or, alternatively, for delivery of the child “to the court or a place of detention or shelter care designated by the court.” We think it plain that the legislature, in enacting [§ 3

- 8A

- 14] , did not intend to require the release of a juvenile to the child ’ s parent or guardian when, as here, the crimes charged

— first degree murder and armed robbery

— were both beyond the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. There can be no doubt that the statutory reference to “the court” means the juvenile court; the “court” is so defined in [CJ § 3

- 8A

- 01(j)] and is consistently used with this meaning throughout [§ 3

- 8A

- 14]

. . . .

17 As indicated, in 2001, CJ § 3

- 814 was recodified as CJ § 3

- 8A

- 14 wit hout substantive change. 2001 Md. Laws, Ch. 415.29 Nor can Jones’s interpretation of [§ 3

- 8A

- 14(b)] be harmonized with the purposes of the Juvenile Causes Act as a whole. Although the special protections thereby afforded to children are not in express terms limited to children within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, it is clear the legislature did not intend to extend these protections to all children. [CJ § 3

- 8A

- 02(a)] states: “The purposes of this subtitle are: [(4)] To provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of this subtitle. . . .” Manifestly, therefore, some children were excluded from the protective ambit of the Act. Who these children would be, if not those expressly removed from juvenile court jurisdiction . . ., is opaque at best. We think a more natural interpretation of [§ 3

- 8A

- 02(a)(4)] would find in it a recognition by the legislature that some children are not in a position to benefit from the Act’s special treatment, and that among these children are those, as here, expressly removed from juvenile court jurisdiction. Thus, to extend the parental notification requirements of [§ 3

- 8A

- 14(b)] to an individual charged with offenses beyond the j uvenile court ’ s jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the stated purposes of the Juvenile Causes Act.

* * * As [§ 3

- 8A

- 14(b)] has no application in this case, noncompliance with its provisions had no direct bearing on the validity of Jones’s Miranda waiver or the traditional voluntariness of his ensuing confession. The purpose of [§ 3

- 8A

- 14(b)] is to protect the child from unnecessary separation from a parent or guardian.
Id. at 405

– 0 7. Here, as in Jones , CJ § 3

- 8A

- 14(b) did not apply because appellant was charged
with offense s beyond the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Appellant, who was 16 years old at the time of the crime, was charged with felony murder, which carries a sentence of life imprisonment

. See C R § 2

- 201(b)(1)

. CJ § 3

- 8A

- 03(d)(1) provides that a juvenile court
d oes not have jurisdiction over “[a] child at least 14 years old alleged to have done an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a crime punishable by life imprisonment, as well as all other charges against the child arising out of the same incident[.] ” Th e court did not30

abuse its discretion in declining to provide a jury instruction on this inapplicable statutory provision

. 18
III.
Life Sentences for Juveniles Appellant next contends that the circuit court erred in automatically sentencing him

to a life sentence “ without proper consideration of his youth and all of its attendant
circumstances and the penological justification for imposing such a sentence ” on a juvenile convicted of felony murder

. Appellant points to the developmental and cognitive differences between juveniles and adults, which he asserts establishes the “diminished culpability of a juvenile offender , ” and he argues that a life sentence, imposed without considering those factors, is “ unconstitutional ly cruel and unusual punishment , ” in violation of the Eighth Amendment o f the U.S. Constitution and Articles 16 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Right s.

18 Moreover, MPJI

- CR 3:18, the instruction provided to the jury, “fairly covered” appellant’s concern about the lack of parental notification and involvement in the interview on the voluntariness of his confession. See Md. Rule 4

- 325(c). That instruction d irected the jury to consider “who was present” when the statement was made, “the mental and physical condition of the defendant,” the “age, background, experience, education, character, and intelligence of the defendant,” and “any other circumstances surro unding the taking of the statement.” MPJI

- CR 3:18. Accordingly, the instruction “provided ample guidance for the jury” to consider the presence, or lack thereof, of a parent when determining the voluntariness of appellant’s interview statements. See Dic key v. State , 404 Md. 187, 203

– 04 (2008) (Defendant was not entitled to jury instruction that testimony by a witness who uses drugs must be examined with greater scrutiny than other witnesses because the provided instructions on the consideration of the wi tness’ perception, memory, and state of mind, coupled with his testimony regarding his drug use, “provided ample guidance for the jury to make credibility assessments.”).31

Appellant further contends that a life sentence is particular ly unjust for a juvenile
convicted of felony murder because the crime relies on transferred intent and is premised on the idea that someone committing a dangerous felony should understand the risk that
someone could be killed , but juveniles lack the ability to fully consider the consequences
of their actions. As a result, he argues that an automatic life sen tence is “grossly disproportionate” for a juvenile convicted of felony murder, and he urges this Court to join
the “national shift in the applicability of the felony murder rule” with respect to juveniles. The State contends that the sentencing court did not err in imposing a life sentence with the possibility of parole for felony murder

. It a cknowledges that the Supreme Court
has held that the imposition of a mandatory sentence of life without parole, without consideration of the characteristics of juven i l e s, violates the Eight h Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments

. ” A ppellant , however, did not receive a
sentence of life without parole, but rather, he received a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. The State argues that this Court , in Hartless v. State , 241 Md. App. 77 , 8 7

– 92 , cert. granted , 465 Md. 644 (2019), and appeal dismissed , __Md.__ (2021), rejected the argument that an individualized sentencing process was requir ed if the life sentence included the possibility of parole

. In any event, the State argues that the sentencing court in this case considered appellant’s youth and its attendant circumstances before imposing

sentence. The State further argues that Harris’s life sentence for felony murder is “not gros sly disproportionate , either generally or as applied to him. ” It notes that a significant factor in32

the proportionality analysis is the seriousness of the conduct involved, and appellant’s actions here, driving over a police officer standing in front of his vehicle to flee the scene of a burglary , was “extremely serious.” The State f urther challenges appellant’s assertion
that there is a “national consensus ” against convicting juveniles of felony murder and imposing life sentences, and it contends that changes to the felony murder doctrine are best left to the legislature

. T he Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the imposition
of “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend . VIII. Similarly, Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights proh i bits the courts from imposing “cruel or unusual punishment ,” and Article 16 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides “[t]hat sanguinary Laws ought to be avoided as far as it is consistent with the safety of the State; and no Law to inflict cruel and unusual pains and penalties ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter.” 19 The issue of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the context of juvenile offend ers has been the subject of much litigation. Before addressing appellant’s specific claims, we will discuss that precedent.

19 Article 16 and 25 generally are given the same interpretation as the Eighth Amendment, Miles v. State , 435 Md. 540, 552

– 55 (2013) (regarding Art. 16); and Thomas v. State , 333 Md. 84, 103 n.5 (1993) (regarding Art. 25), but appellant has not offered any argument that the protections afforded by the Maryland Declaration of Rights are different or greater , so we analyze solely on the basis of the Eigh th Amendment.33 A . U nited S tates Supreme Court Precedent In the past two decades, “the [United States] Supreme Court has issued a series of
decisi ons in which it held that the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution places limits on the sentencing of juvenile offenders that do not apply to the sentencing of adult offenders.” Carter v. State , 461 Md. 295, 308 (2018). These cases , although
dist inguishable from this case, form the basis for the issues presented by appellant.
I n Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551, 572

– 73 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment s clause prohibits the imposition of
the dea th penalty to an offender who committed a crime while he or she was a juvenile.
T he Court noted, as appellant does here, various characteristics that distinguish juvenile offenders from adult offenders, such as a “lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sen se of responsibility” resulting in “impetuous and ill

- considered actions and decisions,” that juveniles are “more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures” due, in part, to juveniles having less control over their own environm ents , and the “character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult , ” in that “[t]he personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed.” Id. at 569

– 70

. A ccord Carter , 461 Md. at 309. As a result, the Court concluded that the differences between juveniles and adults “are too marked and well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability.” Roper , 543 U.S. at 5 72

– 73.
I n Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 75 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the “Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from imposing a life without parole sentence on a34

juvenile nonhomicide offender.” As the Court of Appeals summarized in Carter , 461 Md.
at 310

– 11: The [Supreme] Court [in Graham ] first considered whether there were “indicia of a national consensus” on the subject. After reviewing various statistics on state laws concerning juvenile sentencing and actual practice, the Court concluded t hat “life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide crimes is as rare as other sentencing practices found to be cruel and unusual.” 560 U.S. at 66, 130 S.Ct. 2011. The Court then considered whether the challenged practice serves legit imate penological goals. The Court reiterated its analysis in Roper that juveniles have “lessened culpability” in comparison to adults. It also distinguished between homicide and non

- homicide offenders, recognizing that “defendants who do not kill, intend to kill, or foresee that life will be taken are categorically less deserving of the most serious form of punishment than are murderers.” Id. at 69, 130 S.Ct. 2011. Accordingly, “when compared to an adult murderer, a juvenile offender who did not kill or in tend to kill has a twice diminished moral culpability.” Id. The Court also noted that life without parole is an “especially harsh” sentence for a juvenile defendant as it condemns the juvenile to a larger percentage of the individual’s life in prison than a much older individual who receives the same sentence. Id. at 70, 130 S.Ct. 2011. The Court concluded that, although legislatures are not required to adopt any particular penological theory, no theory could justify a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender who had not committed murder. 560 U.S. at 71, 130 S.Ct. 2011. The Court considered the common purposes of sentencing schemes: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Retribution was insufficient because “the heart of the retribution rationale is that a criminal sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender[,]” and that “the case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an adult.” Id. (internal citations and quotati on marks omitted). Deterrence could not justify the sentence because the characteristics that make juveniles more likely to make bad decisions also make them less likely to consider the possibility of punishment, which is a prerequisite to a deterrent effe ct. Id. at 72, 130 S.Ct. 2011. Incapacitation could not support the sentence because of the difficulty in determining whether a juvenile defendant is incorrigible at the time of sentencing

– i.e. , “to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” Id. at 72

– 73, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (quoting Roper ). Finally, rehabilitation could not justify the sentence because35

it denies the prisoner the right to “reenter the community [based on] an irrevocable judgment about that person ’ s value and place in society.” Id. at 74, 130 S.Ct. 2011. Importantly, the Court stressed that “[a] State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom” because some “who commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of incarceration for the duration of their live s.” 560 U.S. at 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011. However, a State must “give [juvenile] defendants

. . . some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Id. The Court did not purport to dictate how a [S] tate must provide that opportunity, stating that “[i]t is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance.” Id. Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 465 (2012), the Court expanded its reasoning to juven iles convicted of a homicide. It held that a “mandatory life without parole [sentence] for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments

. ” The Court did not

ca tegorical ly bar life sentences without parole for juveniles, but it held that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” Id. at 479. I t held that a court was required to tak e “ into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Id. at 480. 20

20 As the Court of Appeals explained in Carter v. State , 461 Md. 295, 312 (2018):
Miller was not simply an extension of Graham , but rather a synthesis of two distinct pri nciples. The first principle is that “children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing.” 567 U.S. at 471, 132 S.Ct. 2455. The second principle is that individualized sentencing is required before imposing harsh and immutable s entences. Id. at 475, 132 S.Ct. 2455. “[T]he confluence of these two lines of precedent leads to the conclusion that mandatory life

- without

- parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.” Id . at 470, 132 S.Ct. 2455.36

In Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U.S. 190, 208

– 09 (2016), the Supreme Court held
that Miller ’s limitati ons on life without parole for juvenile offenders applied retroactively. The Court noted that “[a] hearing where ‘youth and its attendant characteristics’ are considered as sentencing factors is necessary to separate those juveniles who may be
sentenced t o life without parole from those who may not.” Id. at 210. Trial courts were not, however, required “to make a finding of fact regarding a child’s incorrigibility.” Id.
at 211.
R ecently, in Jones v. Mississippi , 141 S.Ct. 1307 , 1316, 1318 ( 2021), the Supreme Court explained that Miller “required a discretionary sentencing procedure” and
mandated “ only that a sentence r follow a certain process

— considering an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics

— before imposing ” a life

without

- parole sente nce. Id. , at 483, 132 S.Ct. 2455. In that process, the sentencer will consider the murderer ’ s “ diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.” Id. , at 479, 132 S.Ct . 2455. That sentencing procedure ensures that the sentencer affords individualized “ consideration ” to, among other things, the defendant ’ s “ chronological age and its hallmark features. ” Id. , at 477, 132 S.Ct. 2455. The Court held that “an on

- the

- record sentencing explanation is not necessary to ensure that a sentencer considers a defendant’s youth” before imposing a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile. Id. at 1319. Appellant relies on these cases in discussing the differences between juvenile s and adults. These cases however, involved sentences of death or life without parole, whereas appellant received a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court has
never indicated that such a sentence in a homicide case would const itute cruel and unusual punishment. Indeed, it has said: “ [I] n a case involving an individual who was under 1837

when he or she committed a homicide, a State’s discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.” Id. at 1313.
B . Maryland Precedent Maryland law provides that “[a] person who commits a murder in the first degree is guilty of a felony and on conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility o f parole; or imprisonment for life.” CR § 2

- 201(b)(1). Accordingly, a first

degree murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. State v. Crawley , 455 Md. 52, 54 (2017) (“All forms of first degree murder carry a statutorily

- mandated life sentence .”). The sentencing court, however, has the discretion to suspend any portion of the sentence if the suspended portion includes a period of probation. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. Article (“CP”), § 6

- 222(a) ( 2018 Repl. Vol. ).
In Carter , 461 Md. at 306

– 07, the Court of Appeals addressed three consolidated
cases in which the juvenile defendants argued that, although their sentences technically
were not life without the possibility of parole, they were “effectively serving a sentence of life without p arole , because the laws governing parole in Maryland do not provide [them]
with a ‘ meaningful opportunity to obtain release .’” Id. at 307 . As relevant to this appeal,

t he Court rejected th at contention with respect to the two defendants who received life sentences with the possibility of parole. It held that the S tate’s parole system , “including the statute, regulations, and [the Governor’s 2018] executive order, provides a juvenile offender serving a life sentence with a ‘meaningful opportunity to obtai n release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation

. ’” Id. at 365. Accordingly, it held that the life38

sentences “do not inherently violate the Eighth Amendment and are not illegal for that
reason.” Id. 21
In Hartless , 241 Md. App. at 85, this Court considered appellant’s argument that his
life sentence was illegal because he was entitled to an “individualized sentencing process,” at which the circuit court must “expressly consider his youth and attendant circumstances,” regardless of whether he was given an opportunity for parole. We noted that Hartless did not rely on Miller for this argument, stating: “Indeed, if a Miller violation can be remedied simply by permitting a juvenile offender to be considered for parole, it is illogical to suggest that Montgomery and Miller somehow require an individualized sentencing process for all juveniles convicted of homicide, regardless of whether they are sentenced to life with or without parole.” Id. at 87. This Court then rejected Hartless’ rel iance on Carter for this argument, explaining
as follows: We find no support in Carter for Hartless’ proposition that all juvenile offenders convicted of homicide have the right to an individualized sentencing process that takes account of the offender’s y outh. In our view, the identification of Hartless’ proposed right is unsupported by the context of the various examples of quoted language, as well as inconsistent with Supreme Court authority. Carter held that a sentence of life imprisonment with the poss ibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders does not violate

21 Appellant’s argument on appeal addresses the sentence imposed, not whether he has a subsequent meaningful opportunity for release. Nevertheless, we note that, in addition to established opportunities for parole, recently enacted legislation provides that appellant may file a mot ion to reduce the duration of his sentence after 20 years of incarceration. See 2021 Md. Laws, Ch. 61 (CR §§ 6

- 235; 8

- 110, effective October 1, 2021) (An individual that was convicted as an adult for an offense committed when the individual was a minor, w as sentenced for the offense before October 1, 2021, and has been imprisoned for at least 20 years for the offense may file a motion to reduce the duration of the sentence and receive a hearing.).39

the Eighth Amendment. This is the sentence Hartless received. We, therefore, reject Hartless’ contention that his sentence is unconstitutional because he did not receive an individualized s entencing hearing at which the circuit court expressly considered his youth and attendant circumstances.
Id. at 91

– 92 (footnote omitted). 22
I n Holly v. State , 241 Md. App. 349, 35 2 (2019) , this Court addressed Holly’s argument that his life sentence with parole was unconstitutional because the parole system did “not provide a right to state

- furnished counsel at parole hearings, public funds for experts, or judicial review of parole decisions.” In rejecting this argument, this Court noted
tha t the Court of Appeals had held that the “ juvenile homicide offenders’ life sentences with parole were legal because ‘ the laws governing parole of inmates serving life sentences in Maryland

. . . allow a juvenile offender serving a life sentence a “ meaning ful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. ”’ ” Id. at 355 (quoting
Carter , 461 Md. at 307)

. With that background, we address appellant’s argument on appeal.

22 On August 26, 2019, the Court of Appeals granted certiora ri in Hartless

. Hartless v. State , 465 Md. 664 (2019). That appeal was stayed on March 11, 2020, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Mississippi , 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021) . The Supreme Court issued its decision in Jones on April 22, 2021 . The Court held, as indicated, that a judge must consider the defendant’s youth before sentencing a defendant to life without the possibility of parole, but no on

- the

- record sentencing explanation is required. Jones , 141 S.Ct. at 1318

– 19. On May 27, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued an order lifting the stay in Hartless and dismissing the appeal. We note that the parties’ briefs in this case were filed, and oral argument occurred, while the appeal in Hartless was stayed in the Court of Appeals and prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones

.40 C . Individualized Sentencing Appellant initially contend s that his life sentence for felony murder i s an illegal

sentence because the court failed to conduct a n individualized hearing to consider his “youth and all of its attendant circumstances and the penological justification for imposing such a sentence.” As appellant acknowledges, this Court rejected a similar argument in
Hartless , 241 Md. App. at 92 , holding that the c onstitutional requirement of “individualized sentencing ” where the defen dant’s youth and its attendant circumstances
are considered i s limited to the context of a sentence of life without parole. Accord Bowling v. Director, Va. Dep’t of Corr ., 920 F.3d 192, 199 (4th Cir. 2019) (“ Miller and its lineage give s rise to a constitutionally protected liberty in juvenile

- specific Eighth Amendment protections,” but those “juvenile

- specific Eighth Amendment protections do not apply” to juveniles sentenced to life with parole.) , cert. denied , 140 S.Ct. 2519 (2020); Sta te v. Seam , 823 S.E.2d 605 , 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) ( “ Miller specifically requires such an
individualized consideration of

. . . mitigating factors only in cases where a juvenile defendant has been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. ” ) , aff’d , 837 S.E.2d 870 (N.C. 2020). In his brief, appellant stated that he was “hopeful” that Hartless would be reversed by the Court of Appeals. As indicated, however, the Court subsequently dismissed the petition for a writ of certiorari in that case , and our decision in Hartless controls.41

We further note that appellant ’ s youth was presented to the court for consideration in the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) and by defense counsel. 23 Counsel for appellant acknowledged at oral argument that defense counsel ’s argument below was not limited in this regard, and the circuit court said that it had considered all the evidence and
all factors. Appellant’s contention that his sentence is uncon stitutional because he did not receive an individualized sentencing hearing is without merit.
D. Disproportionate Sentence Appellant next contends that “ an automatic life sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder is “ grossly disproportionate” and unconstitutional. The State disagrees. The Eighth Amendment encompasses a narrow proportionality principle prohibiting “grossly disproportionate” sentences. State v. Stewart , 368 Md. 26, 31 (2002) (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan , 501 U.S. 957, 997 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring)). Successful challenges on this ground are “exceedingly rare.” Id. Appellant did not argue below that his life sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. He argues, however, that his sentence was illegal pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, and therefore, the issue may be raised at any time

. We agree that the issue is properly before the Court even though it was not raised below

. See Randall Book Corp. v.
State , 316 Md. 315, 322 (1989) (Appellant’s argument that the imposed sentences “constitute[d] cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment is

23 Because PSI reports are confidential, we will not discuss the details of this report. Md. Code An n., Corr. Servs. Article § 6

- 112(a)(2) (2017).42

cognizable under a claim of an illegal sentence.”). Accord Hartless , 241 Md. App. at 84

– 85 (motion to correct illegal sentence may be raised at any time). We review the
constitutional issue de novo

. Bishop v. State , 218 Md. App. 472, 504 (2014) (An illegal sentence, which may be corrected at any time, is reviewed by this Court de novo .) , cert. denied , 441 Md. 218 (2015)

. This Court has set forth a two

- step process for reviewing a proportionality challenge: [A] reviewing court must first determine whether the sentence appears to be grossly disproportionate. In so doing, the court should look to the s eriousness of the conduct involved, the seriousness of any relevant past conduct as in the recidivist cases, any articulated purpose supporting the sentence, and the importance of deferring to the legislature and to the sentencing court. See [ State v. ] Dav is , 310 Md. [611,] 631

– 32, 530 A.2d 1223 [ (1987)] and Minor [ v. State ], 313 Md. [573,] 583

– 84, 546 A.2d 1028, [(1988) ]

. If these considerations do not lead to a suggestion of gross disproportionality, the review is at an end. If the sentence does appear to be grossly disproportionate, the court should engage in a more detailed . . . analysis. It may conduct an intra

- and inter

- jurisdictional analysis as a vehicle for comparison and as a source of objective standards; it must, however, remember that under principles of federalism, a state legislature may choose to impose a more severe penalty than other states consider appropriate. In order to be unconstitutional, a punishment must be more than very harsh; it must be grossly disproportionate.
Howard v. State , 232 Md. App. 125, 175

– 76 (quoting Thomas v. State , 333 Md. 84, 95

– 96 (1993)), cert. denied , 453 Md. 366 (2017). Pursuant to this analysis, “we look first to the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct.” Stewart , 368 Md. at 34. Here, appellant’s particular conduct was extremely
serious

. While fleeing the scene of a felony burglary, h e drove over and killed a police43

officer who was standing i n front of his vehicle

. U nder such circumstances, a life sentence
was not “extreme , ” and it did not raise an inference of gross disproportionality. See
Stewart , 368 Md. at 32. Indeed, the General Assembly’s determination that felony murder
committed dur ing a burglary constitutes first

- degree murder indicates the seriousness of
this offense. See Solem , 463 U.S. at 290 n.16 (“In view of the substantial deference that must be accorded legislatures and sentencing courts, a reviewing court rarely will be
req uired to engage in extended analysis to determine that a sentence is not constitutionally disproportionate.”).
A ppellant’s life sentence d oes not pass the first step in the proportionality analysis

. G iven that his conduct caused another person to lose her life , the life sentence d oes not appear grossly disproportionate

. Accordingly, we need not engage in further proportionality review. See Stewart , 368 Md. at 38. We do note briefly, however, that the Supreme Court of Iowa recently rejected an argument si milar to that made by appellant, i.e., that there was a “national consensus” against sentencing juvenile offenders convicted of felony murder to life with parole. State v. Harrison , 914 N.W.2d 178, 198, 205 (Iowa 2018). We hold that appellant’s sentence of life with the possibility of parole was not grossly disproportionate, and it did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
IV.
Plain Error Review
A ppellant ’s final contention is that the felony murder doctrine , as ap plied to juveniles, is unconstitutional because it violates the due process clauses of the Fifth and44

Fourteenth Amendments and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Recognizing that the issue was not raised below, and therefore, that it is not preserved for appellate review, appellant asks this Court to review the issue under the doctrine of plain

error. 24
We decline to exercise our discretion to conduct plain error review

. Although this Court has discretion to review unpreserved errors, the C ourt of Appeals has explained that “appellate courts should rarely exercise” their discretion under Md. Rule 8

- 131(a). Chaney
v. State , 397 Md. 460, 468 (2007). This is because considerations of both fairness and judicial efficiency ordinarily require tha t all challenges that a party desires to make to a trial court ’ s ruling, action, or conduct be presented in the first instance to the trial court so that (1) a proper record can be made with respect to the challenge, and (2) the other parties and the trial judge are given an opportunity to consider and respond to the challenge.
Id. Accord Kelly v. State , 195 Md. App. 403, 431 (2010), cert. denied , 417 Md. 502 (2011),
cert. denied , 563 U.S. 947 (2011). We reserve our exercise of plain error review for instances when the “unobjected to error [is] ‘compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial.’” State v. Brady , 393 Md. 502, 507 (2006) (quoting State v. Hutchinson , 287 Md. 198, 202 (1980)). Accord Steward v. State , 218 Md. App. 550, 566

– 67, cert. denied , 441 Md. 63 (2014). Appellate review based on plain error is “a rare, rare, phenomenon.”

24 In his brief, which was filed in this Court prior to the most recent legislative session, appellant stated that he “raises this issue to preserve what may soon be a modification in Maryland’s law if a bill i s re - introduced seeking abolition of traditional first

- degree felony murder convictions for juveniles.” This bill was reintroduced during the 2021 session (S .B. 395/H.B. 385) , but it did not pass.45

Morris v. State , 153 Md. App. 480, 507 (2003), cert. denied , 380 Md. 618 (2004). We are not persuaded that this cont ention of error warrants the exercise of plain error review. Accordingly, we shall not address it

.
JUDGMENT S OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY AFFIRMED . COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT .