Court Opinion

ID: 9766603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:54:44.987639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:24.029568
License: Public Domain

RAKER, J., concurring, in which BELL, C.J., and GREENE, J., join:
I would affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Harford County denying Baker’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. Baker’s sentence is neither a mistake nor irregular under Md. Rule 4-345.
Baker claims that he was denied due process under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. He relies on Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Ring and Apprendi are not implicated in Baker’s case because the weighing standard of aggravating circumstances versus mitigating circumstances of the Maryland death penalty statute was never triggered. Judge Whit-fill, the sentencing authority in Baker’s case, found no mitigators had been proven. Accordingly, there was nothing to weigh in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed; under the Maryland statutory scheme, the required sentence was death. He is entitled to no relief on this ground. See Baker v. State, 367 Md. 648, 790 A.2d 629 (2002), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1050, 122 S.Ct. 1815, 152 L.Ed.2d 817 (2002).
Baker’s claim that his waiver of jury sentencing was not knowing or voluntary and was therefore ineffective is merit-less also. Judge Whitfill carefully explained Baker’s rights to him and his waiver was effective.
Chief Judge BELL and Judge GREENE have authorized me to state that they join in this concurring opinion.
*568ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PER CURIAM.
Upon Motion for Reconsideration, Wesley Eugene Baker, by his attorneys, argues that the decision in the above entitled case should be reconsidered in order for the Court to address an argument made in Baker’s brief at this court. That argument is identified in Baker’s Motion for Reconsideration as:
“Maryland Statutory Provisions Permitting Proof in Aggravation to be Presented Regardless of Its Admissibility Under the Rules Governing Admission of Evidence at Criminal Trials and In Derogation of the Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation Render Appellant’s Sentence and Maryland’s Statutory Scheme Unconstitutional.”
We grant the Motion to Reconsider and hold that the issue was not preserved for appellate review. In the trial court the State argued that the issue above had not been raised in the trial court nor preserved by objection at trial. In responding to the State’s answer, and in a subsequent motion for the trial court to reconsider its denial of the relevant motion filed below, Baker did not challenge the State’s position on the issue of preservation. Accordingly, that issue is not preserved.1

. Furthermore, the argument appears to be unrelated to the questions presented on appeal.