Legal Opinion

Scott v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 26, 2016No. 2412/14PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeborah S. Eyler, J.

In this case we must decide whether, when a mandatory enhanced sentence for a third crime of violence is vacated on appeal because the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding that one of the prior convictions was for a crime of violence, double jeopardy bars the State from introducing new evidence at resentencing on remand to show that the same prior conviction was for a crime of violence. We hold that it does not. Our holding is at odds with the Court of Appeals decision in Bowman v. State, 314 Md. 725, 552 A.2d 1303 (1989). As we shall explain, the holding in Bowman was based…

2Cases cited72 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966

67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Scott v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
  2. State v. SalasNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2017
  3. Santana v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2026
  4. State v. SalasNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API