State of Maine v. Seymore

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET CUMBERLAND, ss. CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CUMCD-09-3427 (-,

_)' STATE OF MAINE,

Plaintiff

v. ORDER & DECISION

CATRINA LYNN SEYMORE,

Defendant.

BACKGROUND

The defendant, Catrina Lynn Seymore (Seymore), is charged with one count ofEngaging

in Prostitution, a Class E crime. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 853-A. 1 A Class E crime is punishable by up

to a $1,000 fine and six months imprisonment, but section 853-A(l )(A) articulates that for a

first-time violation the "sentencing alternatives may include only the penalties provided in

section 1301." Section 1301 states that a person convicted of a crime "may be sentenced to pay

a fine," and provides guidelines amounts? Seymore alleges that, in accordance with 17-A

1 Section 853-A states: I. A person is guilty of engaging in prostitution if: A. The person engages in prostitution as defined in section 851. Violation of this paragraph is a Class E crime, except that the sentencing alternative may include only the penalties provided in section 130 I; or B. The person violates paragraph A and, at the time of the offense, the person has one or more prior convictions under this section or for engaging in substantially similar conduct to that contained in this section in another jurisdiction. Section 9-A governs the use of prior convictions when determining a sentence, except that, for the purposes of this paragraph, the date of the prior conviction may not precede the commission of the offense by more than 2 years. Violation ofthis paragraph is a Class D crime. 2 The relevant portions of section 1301 are: "1-A. A natural person who has been convicted of a Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D or Class E crime may be sentenced to pay a fine, unless the law that the person is convicted of violating expressly provides that the fine and imprisonment penalties it authorizes may not be suspended, in which case the convicted

0 11 , , , I C, - I - 1'0.

M.R.S.A § 4-B, since the section of the statute with which she is charged does not impose any jail time, it is a civil violation, not a crime. 3 On this basis, Seymore has moved, pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2), to dismiss the complaint for failure to allege a criminal offense. For the reasons discussed below, her motion is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

The interpretation of statutes is a question of law. State v. Day, 2000 ME 192, ,-r5, 760 A.2d 1039, 1040. The court first looks to the plain meaning ofthe statute and "considers the particular language in the context of the whole statutory scheme." !d. (internal citations omitted). Although, criminal statutes must be strictly construed, "judicial interpretation must be reasonable and sensible, with a view to effectuating the Legislature." State v. Millett, 392 A.2d 521, 525 (Me. 1978). If there are ambiguities after strictly construing a criminal statute, the statute must be resolved in favor of the defendant, but statutory language should not be construed so as to provide "absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results." State v. Day, 1999 ME 29, ,-r13, 724 A.2d 1245, 1247; see also State v. Wilder, 2000 ME 32, ,-r 30, 748 A.2d 444, 452. However the court must not lose sight of the integral principle "that, where the language of a statute [is] plain and unambiguous, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation. State v. Millett, 392 A.2d at 525 (citing Chase v. Edgar, 259 A.2d 30, 32 (Me. 1969)).

person must be sentenced to the imprisonment and required to pay the fine authorized in that law. Subject to these sentences and to section 1302, the fine may not exceed: ... E. $1,000 for a Class E crime." Section 1302 provides the criteria for imposing fines, namely an offender's ability to pay the fine.

3 Section 4-B(3) states: "A law or ordinance which prohibits defined conduct, but does not provide an imprisonment penalty, is a civil violation, enforceable in accordance with subsection I. A law or ordinance which is stated to be a criminal violation or which otherwise uses language indicating that it is a crime, but does not provide an imprisonment penalty is a civil violation ... unless the law or ordinance is an exception to the operation of this subsection."

II. Section 853-A

The court concludes that violating section 853-A is a crime, not a civil violation, and Defendant Seymore's argument fails because it ignores the plain language and the entire statutory schema of section 853-A.

The plain language of section 853-A clearly indicates the criminal nature of the statute by establishing that a first time violation of the statute is a Class E crime, and subsequent violations are Class D crimes. 4 The court concludes that not only is the statute clear and unambiguous, but also that to construe it any other way would cause absurd results because it would render the statute essentially useless. If, as Seymore contends, first time violators could only be convicted of a civil violation then section 853-A (1 )(B) would be of no use because no one would ever have prior criminal convictions under the statute. Thus, the court disagrees with Seymore's contention that the statute should be construed as a civil violation, both because it contravenes the plain language of the statute, and because the interpretation would render absurd results. 5

Defendant Seymore further asserts that since the portion of section 853-A with which she is charged does not provide for imprisonment this portion of the statute can only be a civil violation. The court is not persuaded by this argument. "Statutes should be construed as a whole." Walters v. Ives, 1988 Me. Super. LEXIS 137, 16 (June 6, 1988) (citing Inman v.

4 The defendant alleges that the Legislature intentionally made violation of section 853-A a civil violation because they could have amended the language of the statute when making the 2001 amendments to exclude the applicability of 4-B. The court disagrees. Although it is not necessary to discern the legislative intent behind the statute since its purpose is clear from the plain language, the court notes that one of the primary purposes for the 2001 amendments was to make the entire Chapter 17-A gender neutral. See L.D. 128, Summary, at lines 34-37 (120th Legis. 2001) (stating that the changes include "language to make the statutes gender neutral"); see also Kimball v. Land Use Regulation Commission, 2000 ME 20, ~ 19,745 A.2d 387,392 (stating that "only when the words are susceptible of multiple meanings, or render the enactment an absurdity or nullity, should the court explore the indicia of legislative intent"). 5 The court further notes that as the statute is not ambiguous, the "Rule of Lenity" is inapplicable.

Willinski, 144 Me. 116, 123, 65 A.2d 1, 5 ( 1916) ). The meaning of a statute "is to be sought by an examination and consideration of all of its parts and not from any particular word or phrase that may be contained in it. This is the guiding star in the construction of any statute. Such a construction must prevail as it will form a consistent and harmonious whole." !d.

Lastly, a plain reading of section 853-A reveals two different penalties for violating the statute, one that allows imprisonment and one that imposes a fine. "The fact that one sentence does not refer to imprisonment as a sanction does not alter the criminal import of the provision." See Walters, 1988 Me. Super. LEXIS 137, 16 (stating that "[a]lthough the legislative history ... provides no guidance ... [when r]ead as a 'harmonious whole,' [it] is a criminal statute"). Although the penalty for a first time offense under section 853-A(l)(A) is a fine, this does not negate that the statute taken as a whole is criminal in nature. Further, the Law Court has clearly stated that imprisonment cannot be imposed for a civil offense. See State v. George Hall & Sons, 1987 Me. Super. LEXIS 87, 2-3 (Mar. 24, 1987) (citing State v. Freeman, 487 A.2d 1175, 1177 (Me. 1985); State v. Anton, 463 A.2d 703, 706-06 (Me. 1983). Thus, as imprisonment may result from violating section 853-A, it is evident that it is criminal in nature and not a civil violation.

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED. DATED: q\, t, J~. Wheeler, Justice

STATE ' OF MA > vs . .KE Docket No CUMCD-CR-2009-03427 C-A.TJ?.INA "10 LYJ SO[J GRzwDVJE 04106 DOCKET RECORD TH POR"

Doa. 1 9 Att . 1 /RICK BANDA State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON orne ~IEL G LILLEY LAW OFFICE 9 PORTLAND PIER PO BOX 4803 pORTLAND ME 04112 RETAINED 05/13/2009

ChalJe{s) 1. ENGAGING IN PROSTITUTION 04/30/2009 PORTLAND Seq 8528 17-A 853-A{l) {A) Class E FINLEY / POR

)ocket Events: 5/05/2009 FILING DOCUMENT - NON CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 05/04/2009

5/05/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 05/28/2009 @ 8:30 in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL >/05/2009 BAIL BOND - $1,000.00 UNSECURED BAIL BOND FILED ON 05/04/2009

Bail Amt: $1,000 Date Bailed: 04/30/2009 988 /13/2009 Party(s): CATRINA LYNN SEYMORE ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 05/13/2009

Attorney: DARRICK BANDA 122/2009 Charge(s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - COMPLAINT FILED ON 05/21/2009 JAMES TURCOTTE , ASSISTANT CLERK '29/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT WAIVED ON 05/28/2009 JEFF MOSKOWITZ , JUDGE 29/2009 Charge(s): 1 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY COUNSEL ON 05/28/2009 JEFF MOSKOWITZ , JUDGE 05/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 07/29/2009 @ 1:00 in Room No. 7

)5/2009 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 08/17/2009@ 8:30 in Room No. 11 15/2009 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL NOTICE SENT ON 06/05/2009

5/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 07/02/2009 Page 1 of 2 Printed on: 09/02/2009

CATRINA LYNN SEYMORE CUMCD-CR-2009-03427 DOCKET RECORD

07/29/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 07/29/2009 MARYGAY KENNEDY , JUDGE Attorney: DARRICK BANDA DA: TRACY BARDWELL Defendant Present in Court 07/29/2009 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 07/29/2009

07/29/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS SCHEDULED FOR 08/18/2009 @ 1:00 in Room No. 8

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 07/29/2009 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL NOT HELD ON 07/29/2009

MOTION HEARING SET 07/29/2009 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 09/08/2009 ® 8:30 in Room No. 11

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 07/29/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS NOTICE SENT ON 07/29/2009

08/11/2009 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 08/11/2009

STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEF'S MOTION TO DISMISS. 08/19/2009 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS HELD ON 08/18/2009 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE IN CHAMBERS T NADEAU INTERN FOR THE STATE AND ATTY SEYMORE FOR THE DEFENSE. ARGUMENTS MADE. MOTION UNDER ADVISEMENT. 08/19/2009 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 08/18/2009

09/02/2009 ORDER - COURT ORDER FILED ON 09/01/2009 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE ORDER & DECISION. THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS THEREFORE DENIED. 09/02/2009 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED ON 09/01/2009 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk

Page 2 of 2 Printed on: 09/02/2009