McGlone v. State

Dissenting Opinion by

BELL, C.J.,

which RAKER, J. joins.

I disagree with the majority’s holding that (1) the “plain language of § 643B(c)[1] does not require intervening terms of *562confinement between the predicate convictions.” McGlone v. State, 406 Md. 545, 558, 959 A.2d 1191, 1198 (2008), and that (2) there is no requirement under the statute that, for the purposes of sentence enhancement, the predicate convictions must be imposed sequentially. 406 Md. at 559-61, 959 A.2d at 1199-1200. As this Court noted in Jones v. State, 336 Md. 255, 264, 647 A.2d 1204, 1208 (1994):

“the penological…