Opinion ID: 2798596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing to Appeal Sentence

Text: [¶11] As an initial matter, we note that a direct appeal from a sentence is only justiciable upon a claim “that the sentence is illegal, imposed in an illegal manner, or beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and the illegality appears plainly in the record.” State v. Schmidt, 2010 ME 8, ¶ 5, 988 A.2d 975. Any claimed abuse of discretion in the court’s application of the Hewey process can be reviewed only upon the grant of an application for “leave to appeal from sentence,” which is not available to Bennett in this case. 15 M.R.S. § 2152; see id. § 2151; 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C (2014); State v. Ricker, 2001 ME 76, ¶ 18, 770 A.2d 1021. [¶12] There are no statutory infirmities in the sentence before us. The court had jurisdiction to sentence Bennett, see 15 M.R.S. § 1 (2014), and Bennett’s jail sentence falls well within the timeframe explicitly authorized by the Legislature for a person convicted of a Class D crime, see 17-A M.R.S. § 1252(2)(D) (2014) (authorizing a court to impose a term of imprisonment of less than one year). No aspect of the sentence, including the commitment to jail, the fine, or the 3 Bennett has also filed a petition for post-conviction review, which has been stayed pending the outcome of this appeal. The court denied Bennett’s motion for stay of execution of his sentence until after the resolution of his post-conviction review. 8 surcharges, falls outside of the court’s authority. See id.; 17-A M.R.S. § 1301(1-A)(D) (2014); 4 M.R.S. § 1057 (2014). [¶13] Thus, the record discloses no obvious illegality that can be addressed through this direct appeal. Nonetheless, Bennett argues that the sentence is illegal because (1) it constitutes an unconstitutionally disproportionate sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 9 of the Maine Constitution; (2) he was punished based on his profession, not on the crime he committed, in violation of his equal protection rights; and (3) his sentence was “enhanced” without sufficient factual support, in violation of his due process rights. Claims alleging violations of a defendant’s constitutional rights constitute an attack on the legality of the sentencing proceeding and may be cognizable on direct appeal. See Ricker, 2001 ME 76, ¶ 19, 770 A.2d 1021.