Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Maine v. Galixte Fleury
Date: 02-22-2025
Case Number: Yor-24-68
Judge: Martemucci
Court: Superior Court, York County, Maine
Plaintiff's Attorney: York County, Maine District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Biddleford Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Click Here For The Best Biddleford Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Biddleford, Maine, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with aggravated trafficking, unlawful trafficking, unlawful possession of scheduled drugs, and operating under the influence.
Calixte Fleury appeals from a judgment of conviction of aggravated trafficking, unlawful trafficking, unlawful possession of scheduled drugs, and operating under the influence entered by the trial court (York County, Martemucci, J.) after a jury found him guilty. As relevant here, at the time of Fleury's offenses, 17-A M.R.S. § 1101(17)(F) (2020) defined "traffick" to include "possess[ing] 2 grams or more of fentanyl powder." While Fleury's case was pending in the trial court, the Legislature amended the definition of "traffick," repealing subsection (F) of section 1101(17). P.L. 2021, ch. 396, § 1 (effective Oct. 18, 2021). Fleury argues the application of the repealed definition of "traffick" is unconstitutional. We disagree. Because the possession and trafficking counts should have been merged, however, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
* * *
Legal issue Was the application of the repealed definition of "traffick," under which possessing 2 grams or more of fentanyl constituted trafficking, constitutional in this case?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. APPLICATION OF REPEALED STATUTE. The case examines whether the application of a since-repealed statutory definition of "traffick" was constitutional in the defendant's case, deciding that absent explicit legislative intention for retroactivity, the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted remains applicable.
CRIMINAL LAW. DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND SENTENCING. The court considers the merger of multiple trafficking and possession charges for sentencing, determining that a failure to merge certain counts, resulting in double jeopardy issues, constituted obvious error, necessitating remand for resentencing.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION. The court addresses the argument about the constitutional implications of applying a repealed trafficking statute to pending cases, reinforcing the non-retroactive application of amended criminal statutes in accordance with state law unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Key Phrases Judgment of conviction. Aggravated trafficking. Unlawful possession. Blood alcohol content. Constitutionally applied.
Calixte Fleury appeals from a judgment of conviction of aggravated trafficking, unlawful trafficking, unlawful possession of scheduled drugs, and operating under the influence entered by the trial court (York County, Martemucci, J.) after a jury found him guilty. As relevant here, at the time of Fleury's offenses, 17-A M.R.S. § 1101(17)(F) (2020) defined "traffick" to include "possess[ing] 2 grams or more of fentanyl powder." While Fleury's case was pending in the trial court, the Legislature amended the definition of "traffick," repealing subsection (F) of section 1101(17). P.L. 2021, ch. 396, § 1 (effective Oct. 18, 2021). Fleury argues the application of the repealed definition of "traffick" is unconstitutional. We disagree. Because the possession and trafficking counts should have been merged, however, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
* * *
Legal issue Was the application of the repealed definition of "traffick," under which possessing 2 grams or more of fentanyl constituted trafficking, constitutional in this case?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. APPLICATION OF REPEALED STATUTE. The case examines whether the application of a since-repealed statutory definition of "traffick" was constitutional in the defendant's case, deciding that absent explicit legislative intention for retroactivity, the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted remains applicable.
CRIMINAL LAW. DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND SENTENCING. The court considers the merger of multiple trafficking and possession charges for sentencing, determining that a failure to merge certain counts, resulting in double jeopardy issues, constituted obvious error, necessitating remand for resentencing.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION. The court addresses the argument about the constitutional implications of applying a repealed trafficking statute to pending cases, reinforcing the non-retroactive application of amended criminal statutes in accordance with state law unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Key Phrases Judgment of conviction. Aggravated trafficking. Unlawful possession. Blood alcohol content. Constitutionally applied.
Outcome:
Vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Maine v. Galixte Fleury?
The outcome was: Vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Which court heard State of Maine v. Galixte Fleury?
This case was heard in Superior Court, York County, Maine, ME. The presiding judge was Martemucci.
Who were the attorneys in State of Maine v. Galixte Fleury?
Plaintiff's attorney: York County, Maine District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Biddleford Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Maine v. Galixte Fleury decided?
This case was decided on February 22, 2025.