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 DeMaris Sandidge.

Back in Í998 Marcus DeMaris Sandidge who was just 19 years old, and by far an adult as studies show that people are not adults until they reach the age of about 25, was sentenced to 145 years total for multiple counts of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and ordered to serve 66 years without the possibility of parole in the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg.

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. To abolish the parole law for people sentenced after 1995 and to say parole is ineffective or will not work is just wrong. And to have some prisoners incarcerated in Virginia Department of Corrections under the parole law and others under the no parole law for the same crimes is just cruel and unusual punishment.

Mr. Sandidge has been locked up 27 years now, and on January 23, 2026 it will be 28 years that he has been incarcerated. What's most concerning about Mr. Sandidge's case is that he was convicted 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 Fucility for life or any term not less than five years." [See attached Exhibit A]

However, Mr. Sandidge was sentenced under Virginia Code §18.2-10 'Punishment for Conviction of felony: Penalty', [See attached Exhibit B] that classifies the crime of robbery with a gun as a class 2 felony and changes the penalty range to "…imprisonment for life or for any term not less than 20 years" which is contradictory to Virginia Code §18.2-58 that Mr. Sandidge was actually convicted under. Clearly Virginia Code §18.2-58 spells out the Penalty for "...robbery...by presenting of firearms..." and that Penalty is

"..life or any term not less than five years."

On top of that Mr. Sandidge was arbitrarily convicted under the mandatory minimum Virginia Code §18.2-53.1 'Use or display of a firearm' [See attached Exhibit C] 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'.

Page 1 of 4 Petition for the Freedom of Marcus DeMaris Sandidge

 

Virginia code §18.2-53.1 'Use or display of firearm' spells out the same 'act' of robbery with a firearm as

§18.2-53.1 states in partial: "It shall be unlawful for any person to use or attempt to use any pistol, shotgun, rifle, or other firearm or display such weapon in a threatening manner while committing or attempting to commit...robbery."

An 'act' which is punishable in different ways by different legal provisions shall only be punished under the provision providing the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case should the "act' be punished under more than one provision. Robbery and use of a firearm should be qualified as one 'act' for the purpose of consideration under §18.2-58 'How Punished'. It is otherwise Double Jeopardy and violation of the state and federal constitution.

States should only be allowed to apply code §18.2-53.1 'Use or display of firearm' as a secondary felony when the language of the primary felony does not spell out being punished for committing murder, rape, molestation etc. by presenting of a firearm.

When you look at Virginia Code §18.2-53.1 'Use or display of a firearm' it states: "It shall be unlawful for any 'Person' to use or attempt to use any pistol, shotgun, rifle, or other firearm or display such weapon in a threatening manner while committing or attempting to commit...robbery,... Violation of this section shall constitute a separate and distinct felony any 'Person' found guilty thereof shall be sentenced lo a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three years for a first conviction, and to a mandatory minimum term of five years for a second or subsequent conviction under the provisions of this section. Such punishment shall be separate and «part from, and shall be made to run consecutively with any punishment received for the commission of the primary felony."

The latter part of the Code in §18.2-53.1 states "Such punishment shall be separate and apart from, and shall be made to run consecutively with any punishment received for the commission of the primary felony, " now in Mr. Sandidge's case the primary felony would be the robbery but this was so unclear to the Judge and Prosecutor when it came to running a firearm sentence concurrent with another firearm sentence at SANDIDGE'S sentencing hearing when attorney Grady Donaldson asked the court to run SANDIDGE'S firearm sentences concurrent with each other, that it ultimately lead to arbitrary application of the statute and SANDIDGE received a forty-eight (48) year sentence.

During SANDIDGE'S sentencing hearing attorney Donaldson exchanged communication with the court as to the statutory interpretation of Code §18.2-53.1 [See Trial Transcript excerpt below]:

--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"

"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. "

Page 2 of 4 Petition for the Freedom of Marcus DeMaris Sandidge

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--

In the case with SANDIDGE it is so evidently unclear as to what is PROHIBITED or RESTRICTED of Code §18.2-53.1 because the statute on its face does not Prohibit running firearm sentences concurrent with other firearm sentences.

It appears that the Judge and Prosecutor are so taken aback by the vagueness of the latter part of the statute that the Judge goes on to say "The language of the Statute seems to—I mean, you can't run it" as if the Judge just was not sure. And the prosecutor responds "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.", which does not speak to any of the language of §18.2-53.1 and is evident that the prosecutor was not sure.

When you have a vague law it is left up to the court to try and figure out the legislative intent when it is not clear because the General Assembly did not state EXPLICITLY and DEFINITELY what acts are

PROHIBITED or RESTRICTED, when this happens the judicial body is now acting as both Judicial and Legislative, clearly in violation of Constitutional Due Process and Separation of Powers.

In 2012 the case Timothy A. Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia, (14) years after SANDIDGE'S sentencing hearing, Virginia courts were still unclear on the statutory language of §18.2-53.1. Brown's case is further primary evidence [See below Brown v. Commonwealth Excerpts]:

---Excerpt-

"At sentencing hearing Brown urged the Circuit Court to exercise its discretion to run the mandatory minimum sentences on the use or display of a firearm charges concurrently with each other. "

"The circuit court stated that it preferred to run the firearm sentences concurrently, but it felt compelled to run them consecutively based upon Court of Appeals precedent,"

"Brown argues that the Circuit Court erred in ruling that it lacked the authority to run the firearm sentences concurrently with each other. "

"Thus 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..."

-End Excerpt---

Brown's case clearly shows that even the court concludes 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 had his gun charges ran concurrently.

In 2021 the General Assembly changed Virginia Code §18.2-58 'How Punished' to §18.2-58 'Robbery: penalties', [See attached Exhibit D] whereas the language of the whole code 18.2-58 is changed and now includes the language of 18.2-10, but the classification of robbery with a gun that Mr. Sandidge was convicted of is classified as a class 3 felony instead of a class 2 felony. And this ultimately changes the severity of the sentence. The problem is Mr. Sandidge has not been able to take this issue in front of a judge because the new §18.2-58 law does not apply retroactively. And because of the Anti-Terrorism Effective

Page 3 of 4 Petition for the Freedom of Marcus DeMaris Sandidge

 

Death Penalty Act that basically suspends the Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr. Sandidge is time barred.

The court has stated that incarceration that gives no chance for fulfillment outside prison walls, no chance for reconciliation with society, no hope cannot pass constitutional muster. The gth Amendment jurisprudence has clarified that the constitutionality of a sentence depends on the actual impact upon the individual, not how a sentence is labeled, Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66, 83 (1987). There is no tangible distinction between formal life sentence without the possibility of parole and a "de facto" life sentence where the aggregate sentence exceeded the offender's life expectancy.

In conclusion, Mr. Sandidge was arbitrarily sentenced to do more time in prison than necessary for robberies against some money or property where no one was murdered, assaulted or battered, raped or molested nor injured in any way shape or form. People that commit murder, rape and child molestation receive less time when these actual crimes are against the people. In no way are we trying to justify the crimes committed but at this point the question is how much time is enough to say that Mr. Sandidge is rehabilitated or is a changed man and deserves a second chance?

When you look at Mr. Sandidge's performance over the years you will see that he has grown into a mature educated, hard-working, ambitious and responsible man and he needs to be out here in society with his family, friends, loved ones and all the people in this community that supports him and Mr. Sandidge's

release.

Thank You

We the concerned People of Virginia.

Page 4 of 4 Petition for the Freedom of Marcus DeMaris Sandidge