Opinion ID: 2298009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Question Nine: Aggravating Circumstances

Text: Grandison argues that the death sentence he received was illegal because it was based on an aggravating circumstance that occurred after the murders had been committed. Both parties agree that the relevant aggravating circumstance in this case is that: [t]he defendant engaged or employed another person to commit the murder and the murder was committed pursuant to an agreement or contract for remuneration or the promise of remuneration. Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, § 413(d)(7). Grandison's brief acknowledges that this Court ruled on the sufficiency of that evidence twice before. See Grandison II, 305 Md. at 767, 506 A.2d at 621 (We have thoroughly reviewed the record and are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to have allowed the jury to find an agreement between Grandison and Evans to have Scott and Cheryl Piechowicz killed so they would not be available as witnesses against Grandison in his federal drug trial.); Grandison V, 390 Md. at 436, 889 A.2d at 380 (The evidence presented by the prosecution at Grandison's 1983 trial, including that of Evans's guilt and Grandison's role as mastermind is overwhelming and supports our confidence in the result of Grandison's 1983 trial.). Even after acknowledging these holdings, Grandison asks us to revisit the sentence on this ground. We decline to do so. We agree with the State that this issue amounts to nothing more than a back-door challenge to the sufficiency of evidence sustaining his conviction and sentence. Furthermore, we held in Grandison V that the sentences were proper in the face of a similar argument. See Grandison V, 390 Md. at 448, 889 A.2d at 387 (Furthermore, because Grandison was sentenced to death based on the jury's determination that he employed Evans to commit murder as contemplated by Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, Section 413(d)(7), we hold that his sentences were proper.). Grandison's argument on this point is nothing more than an attempt to relitigate an issue that this Court has spoken on multiple times. We therefore affirm the Circuit Court's denial of Grandison's motion to correct an illegal sentence on this ground.