We, the good people, Citizens, taxpayers, and voters in the City of Lynchburg of the Commonwealth of Virginia Petition You the elected officials, as well as the Governor of We the People to release Marcus Sandidge. 

In 1998, Marcus Sandidge who was just 19 years old, and by far not an adult, as studies show that people are not adults until they reach the age of about 25, was sentenced in the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg to 145 years total and ordered to serve 66 years without the possibility of parole for multiple counts of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission. Forty-eight (48) of those years is for the additional penalty enhancement for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. 

In addition, Marcus Sandidge received a combined sentence of sixteen (16) years in the Circuit Court of Appomattox and Amherst County. Eight (8) of those sixteen (16) years are for the additional penalty enhancement for use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. 

I. 

THE GUN ENHANCEMENT SENTENCE WAS LEGALLY INCONSISTENT Robbery is a common law crime in Virginia and its punishment is prescribed under Virginia Code §18.2- 58 'How Punished' Which states: "If any 'Person' commit robbery by partial strangulation, or suffocation, or by striking or beating, or other violence to the person, or by assault or otherwise putting a person in fear of serious bodily harm, or by the threat or presenting of firearms, or other deadly weapon or instrumentality whatsoever, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in a State Correctional Facility for life or any term not less than five years." Clearly Virginia Code §18.2-58 'How Punished' establishes the penalty for "...robbery by... presenting of firearms..." and that penalty is " ...life or any term not less than five years. 

However, Mr. Sandidge was arbitrarily convicted and sentenced under the mandatory minimum-Virginia Code §18.2-53.1 'Use or display of a firearm' that allows the State of Virginia to use another statute to stack more prison time on someone convicted under Virginia Code §18.2-58, which is Double Jeopardy. Clearly Virginia Code §18.2-58 'How Punished' sets the penalty for robbery with a gun, so there is no need for Virginia Code §18.2-53.1 'Use or display of a firearm' to be used in relation with Virginia Code §18.2- 58 'How Punished'. 

Virginia Code §18.2-16 Established an Express Jurisdictional Limit on Punishment for Common Law Robbery: 

Virginia Code §18.2-16 'How Common-Law Offenses punished' provides: "A common-law offense, for which punishment is prescribed by statute, shall be punished only in the mode so prescribed." The word 

Page 1 of 4 Petition for the Freedom of Marcus D. Sandidge 

'only' is a jurisdictional boundary-not a preference, not a default, not a guideline. It is the General Assembly's express command defining the outer limit of a court's sentencing authority over common law offenses that carry a prescribed statutory punishment. 

Once $18.2-58 prescribed the punishment for robbery, §18.2-16 operated to limit the court's sentencing jurisdiction to that prescribed mode-and only that mode. The court had no jurisdiction to impose any punishment beyond what §18.2-58 prescribed. The §18.2-53.1 enhancement sentencing orders went beyond that limit. They were entered without sentencing jurisdiction and are therefore void. 

Section $18.2-53.1 Does Not Override §18.2-16: 

Section §18.2-53.1 contains no language purporting to override §18.2-16 or to authorize its application over §18.2-16's express jurisdictional limitation. An implied repeal of an express Statutory limitation is disfavored under Virginia law and will not be found absent a clear statement of legislative intent to override. Elliot v. Commonwealth (Va. App. 2009). There is no such statement. 

Section $18.2-16 enacted in 1950 is the Supreme and governing authority for Virginia Code §18.2-58 enacted the same year-1950. For twenty-five (25) years the common-law crime of robbery by presenting a firearm was punished as one crime-armed robbery under §18.2-58. It wasn't until 1975 that Virginia Code $18.2-53.1 was enacted and used to create an enhanced inflexible mandatory minimum punishment as a separate felony in direct violation of §18.2-16. Breaking robbery apart from presenting a firearm is artificial and unconvincing. There is no enhanced penalty within §18.2-58 for firearm use pursuant to §18.2-53.1, the sentencing range "life or any term not less than five years" applies uniformly regardless of whether a firearm was used. 

The General Assembly, when it enacted §18.2-53.1, did not amend §18.2-16, did not reference it, and did not acknowledge any conflict with it. Section §18.2-16's express jurisdictional limitation therefore remains in full force and effect and controls over any implied application of §18.2-53.1 to common law robbery 

counts. 

II. 

THE STACKING OF FIREARM CHARGES CONSTITUTED AN ARBITRARY APPLICATION OF LAW 

The multiple consecutive sentences under Virginia §18.2-53.1 'Use or display of firearm', dramatically increasing the total length of his incarceration. We submit that this stacking raises serious legal and constitutional concerns. 

A. The Statute's language was ambiguous-as the court itself acknowledge. 

At Mr. Sandidge's sentencing hearing, his attorney, Grady Donaldson, asked the court to run the firearm sentences concurrent with each other. The following exchange from the trial transcript illustrates the profound ambiguity in the statute at that time: 

---Excerpt-- 

Mr. Donaldson: "I ask the court to look at sentencing SANDIDGE in the range of about twenty years or so. Under the $ 18.2-53.1, its clear that you can't run the matters concurrently with the underlying primary felony, but there's nothing there in the statute that says you can't run the firearm charges concurrently with each other and I would ask the court to consider doing that" 

Page 2 of 4 Petition for the Freedom of Marcus D. Sandidge 

"and I think that the court has the authority to run some of these firearms concurrently with each other thus it can be accomplished." 

The Court: "Why do you think I have that authority? Do you have any case that says I do? 

Mr. Donaldson: "I Don't have any case that say that you can do that, Judge but the statute clearly on it's face does not prohibit you from doing that. It says, shall not be suspended whole or in part and it shall be made to run consecutively with any punishment received with the primary felony; in these cases, the robbery or the attempted robbery. There's nothing that states you cannot run it concurrently with another firearm." 

The Court: "Ms. Maddox, as far as running the firearm charges, some or all of them, concurrent with each other, do you have any position on that?" 

Prosecutor (Ms. Maddox): "Judge, I don't have any case law on that today." 

The Court: "The language of the statute seems to-I mean, you can't run it-It's got to be consecutive to the underlying offensive. 

Prosecutor (Ms. Maddox): "Yes sir, I've always been under the opinion that you couldn't run it concurrent with each other but you could run it concurrent with other jurisdictions. 

------End Excerpt-------- 

This exchange reveals that neither the judge nor the prosecutor could confidently interpret the statute. The result was that Mr. Sandidge received the harshest possible interpretation of an ambiguous law-one that neither party could clearly justify. When a statute is so vague that judicial officers themselves cannot agree on it's meaning, and that ambiguity is resolved against the defendant, this constitutes a violation of Due Process and the Separation of Powers. 

B. Subsequent case law confirmed the statute did not prohibit concurrent firearm sentences. In 2012 - fourteen (14) years after Mr. Sandidge's sentencing - the Virginia Court of Appeals addressed the same ambiguity in Timothy A. Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia. In that case, the court confirmed that Virginia Code §18.2-53.1 does not specifically PROHIBIT multiple sentences for 'Use or display of a firearm' from being run concurrently with each other. As a result, Brown's firearm sentences were run concurrently. Mr. Sandidge was denied the same treatment - not because the law required it, but because the law was unclear and interpreted against him. 

C. The firearm enhancement may constitute Double Jeopardy. 

Virginia Code §18.2-58 already accounts for and penalizes the use of presenting a firearm in the commission of robbery. Applying §18.2-53.1 as an additional, stacked penalty for the same act of presenting a firearm constitutes punishment for the same conduct twice-a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Article I of the Virginia Constitution. 

III. 

THE SENTENCE VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENTS PROOHIBITION ON CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT 

The United States Supreme Court has held that incarceration which offers no meaningful opportunity for fulfillment, reconciliation with society, or hope cannot pass constitutional muster. A sentence requiring Mr. 

Page 3 of 4 Petition for the Freedom of Marcus D. Sandidge 

Sandidge to serve a combined total of eighty-two (82) years without the possibility of parole for robberies and firearm penalty enhancements in which no one was physically harmed - entered when he was nineteen (19) years old - is, in effect, a de facto life sentence. There is no meaningful legal distinction between a formal life sentence and one whose aggregate length exceeds any reasonable life expectancy. This sentence cannot pass constitutional standard for proportionality. 

IV. 

THE ABOLITION OF PAROLE HAS CREATED AN UNJUST TWO-TIERED SYSTEM 

Prior to 1995 a person would have been convicted of the same crimes Mr. Sandidge was convicted of and would have been eligible for parole anywhere from 12 to 15 years. The abolishment of parole for those sentenced after 1995 created two classes of incarcerated Virginians serving time for identical crimes under dramatically different conditions. This disparity is itself a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and one that has fallen disproportionately on those like Mr. Sandidge - who were sentenced at the beginning of the no-parole era. 

V. MR. SANDIDGE HAS DEMONSTRATED REHABILITATION 

Mr. Sandidge has now spent 28 years incarcerated. He was a teenager when these offenses occurred. Over the course of his incarceration, he has grown into a mature, educated, and responsible man who has worked to better himself and contribute positively to those around him. He has the support of his family, his community, and the people who have witnessed his transformation firsthand. We do not seek to minimize the harm caused by these offenses. We ask only that you weigh 28 years of accountability and growth against a sentence that has long since exceeded the bounds of justice, proportionality, and common sense. 

VI. 

MR. SANDIDGE'S SENTENCE HAS NO RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE SEVERITY OF HIS OFFENSES. 

To fully grasp the injustice of Marcus Sandidge's eighty-two (82) year mandatory minimum, it must be placed in context alongside what courts - including the most rigorous federal courts in the nation - have considered proportionate punishment for far more serious crimes. Virginia's own sentencing framework makes the disparity stark. 

CONCLUSION 

Marcus Sandidge was sentenced under contradictory statutes, in a proceeding where the presiding judge and prosecutor could not agree on the plain meaning of the law. He has served 28 years for crimes in which no one was physically harmed. Subsequent case law, legislative reform, and evolving constitutional standards all suggest that his sentence was excessive. Because the judicial system has no remaining mechanism to correct this injustice, we respectfully urge you to exercise your executive authority to grant clemency. 

Thank You 

We the concerned People of Virginia 

Page 4 of 4 Petition for the Freedom of Marcus D. Sandidge