Griffin filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which we granted to consider the following questions:Lindsey v. State, 218 Md.App. 512, 527–28, 98 A.3d 340, 349–50, cert. granted sub nom. Griffin v. Lindsey, 441 Md. 61, 105 A.3d 489 (2014).
Gibson v. State, 328 Md. 687 , 689, 616 A.2d 877 (1992). Lindsey v. State, 218 Md.App. 512 , 530, 98 A.3d 340 (2014).
Further, the court noted, "the State and the victim are separate entities with independent rights," and thus "[t]he State cannot waive or forfeit a crime victim's rights by entering into a plea agreement with a criminal defendant." Id. (citing Lindsey v. State, 98 A.3d 340, 350 (Md. App. 2014), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Griffin v. Lindsey, 119 A.3d 753 (Md. 2015)).
(Quotations omitted). Individual Movants cite, e.g., Tunstall v. Shearin, DKC-13-1781, a habeas action, in which the State conceded error and agreed to a resentencing; Lindsey v. State, 218 Md.App. 512, 98 A.3d 340 (2014) (including State's opposition to a victim's claim for restitution), rev'd, Griffin v. State, 444 Md. 278, 119 A.3d 753 (2015); Lopez-Sanchez v. State, 388 Md. 214, 879 A.2d 695 (2005) (including State's opposition to victim's claim for direct appeal); and Cianos v. State, 338 Md. 406, 659 A.2d 291 (1995) (including State's opposition to appeal filed by victim representatives). See ECF 9-2 at 10, 12, 13.
Griffin v. Lindsey Reported below: 218 Md.App. 512, 98 A.3d 340. Disposition: Granted.
Griffin v. LindseyReported below: 218 Md.App. 512, 98 A.3d 340. Disposition: Granted.
"[T]he leading case governing th[e] aspect of double jeopardy law" protecting against multiple punishments is United States v. DiFrancesco , 449 U.S. 117, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980). SeeLindsey v. State , 218 Md. App. 512, 544, 98 A.3d 340 (2014) (applying DiFrancesco ), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.Griffin v. Lindsey , 444 Md. 278, 119 A.3d 753 (2015). DiFrancesco concerned a provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, which allowed the government to appeal the sentences of convicted defendants who were designated "dangerous special offender[s]."
"[T]he leading case governing th[e] aspect of double jeopardy law" protecting against multiple punishments is United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1980). See Lindsey v. State, 218 Md. App. 512, 544 (2014) (applying DiFrancesco), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Griffin v. Lindsey, 444 Md. 278 (2015).
"Restitution, whether ordered as a condition of probation or entered as part of the judgment of conviction, is a criminal sanction that can be challenged as an illegal sentence." Lindsey v. State, 218 Md. App. 512, 539 (2014), rev'd sub nom on other grounds, Griffin v. Lindsey, 444 Md. 278 (2015). "Because restitution statutes are penal in nature, they must be strictly construed."