Sentenced back in 2016 to 88 years for the murder of his former girlfriend, Jermaine Maynard currently has an appeal pending before the Guyana Court of Appeal where he is challenging the sentence which he describes as severe.
On January 16th, 2016, trial Judge Navindra Singh had handed Maynard an 88-year sentence following his conviction for the December 31st, 2013, shooting death of Carlisa Matthews.
In imposing the sentence, Justice Singh had noted that Maynard showed no remorse for committing the crime.
He then commenced the sentence at a base of 60 years, to which he added 10 years for premeditation, six years for domestic violence, six years because Maynard had a prior similar conviction, three years for the use of a firearm, and three years for public endangerment.
Through his attorney Nigel Hughes, Maynard (the appellant) is, however, arguing that the sentence is severe and does not reflect recognized sentencing guidelines.
For one, he advances that there is no legal or evidential justification for the 60-year base at which the judge commenced the sentence; while noting that the applicable approach to and methodology of sentencing was set out in case law authorities.
Maynard said it is evident that this was not taken into account by the trial judge and therefore amounts to an error.
The appellant complains, too, that additions made by the judge to the base-sentence were also not supported by law.
On this point he said that Justice Singh was without jurisdiction to add six years because of a previous conviction, an additional six years for domestic violence and the additional three years for public endangerment.
According to Maynard, the imposition of six years on grounds of a previous conviction, was done without jurisdiction on the part of the judge since that matter was not the subject of the trial before him.
He argues, too, that the trial judge fell into error when he purported to impose time for domestic violence as there was no evidence before the court on that subject, but rather the mere opinion of the mother of the deceased who characterized the relationship between her daughter and the convict as an abusive one.
Another error committed by the judge according to the appellant, was the 3-year addition for public endangerment; since there was no evidence that any member of the public other than the deceased was injured.
On February 16th, the appellate court will hear arguments in Maynard’s case.
The appeal is being heard by Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud.
Representing the state is Prosecutor Dionne McCammon.
Matthew’s mother, Carol Kennedy, had testified that on Old Year’s night 2013, her daughter was standing outside the then Water Street KFC outlet when Maynard approached and asked to speak with her.
She said that at the time, she and Matthews were in the company of other relatives and friends waiting to celebrate the break of the New Year.
Kennedy had told the court that after the two spoke for about five minutes, she then saw the convict pull out a gun and shoot her daughter in her head. The court had heard that Maynard then walked away from the scene and was later arrested and charged.
In her testimony, Kennedy had said that her daughter, 20, and the then 44-year-old Maynard shared an abusive relationship, which the woman decided to end some six months prior to her death.
Police witnesses had testified to arresting Maynard just as he was about to board a vessel at the Guyana/Suriname “backtrack” crossing at Springlands, Corentyne, Berbice.
Prior to Matthews’ killing, Maynard had served a 14-year sentence for manslaughter.
