State v. Creamer
This text of 473 A.2d 882 (State v. Creamer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On appeal Carl Craig Creamer challenges only the sufficiency of evidence that he used a dangerous weapon to commit criminal threatening, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 209, thereby to enhance the sentencing class from D to C pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1252(4). Because we conclude that the indictment phrase “while armed with a dangerous weapon” is not, in the circumstances of this case, the equivalent of the statutory phrase “with the use of a dangerous weapon,” we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence. Rather, we direct that the Superior Court correct the judgment to reflect that the defendant was charged with and convicted of “criminal threatening [883]*883Class D.” In addition, we vacate the sentence supposedly imposed for a Class C offense and remand for resentencing for a Class D offense.
The entry is:
Judgment vacated.
Remanded to the Superior Court for correction of judgment and resentencing in accordance with the opinion herein.
All concurring.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
473 A.2d 882, 1984 Me. LEXIS 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-creamer-me-1984.