RODERICK COLVIN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Dec. 15, 2016, Barbera,
Illegal Sentence – “[O]nly claims sounding in substantive law, not procedural law, may be raised through a Rule 4-345(a) motion”
So finally there’s something that doesn’t fall under “the narrow meaning” of a motion to correct illegal sentence…
Hopefully this marks the beginning of a contraction of the “motion to correct illegal sentence”, but I doubt it
Facts:
In 1989, the Defendant was convicted of murder and other charges. Juror Number 3, the foreperson, announced the verdict for the jury. The clerk then asked every other juror if their verdict was the same as that announced, but the clerk did not ask the foreperson. All jurors hearkened to the verdict. The Defendant did not challenge this on appeal. In 2013, he filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming that his verdict was not unanimous.
Holding: Defect in polling jury not cognizable through motion to correct illegal sentence
Rule 4-345(a) allows a court to “correct an illegal sentence at any time.”
Waiver does not apply to the motion.
Limiting language on the motion:
An illegal sentence, for purposes of Rule 4-345(a), is one in which the illegality “inheres in the sentence itself; i.e., there either has been no conviction warranting any sentence for the particular offense or the sentence is not a permitted one for the conviction
upon which it was imposed and, for either reason, is intrinsically and substantively unlawful.” Id. at 466; see also, e.g., Taylor v. State, 407 Md. 137, 141 n.4 (2009); Baker v. State, 389 Md. 127, 133 (2005). “A sentence does not become ‘an illegal sentence because of some arguable procedural flaw in the sentencing procedure.’” Tshiwala v. State, 424 Md. 612, 619 (2012) (quoting State v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269, 273 (2006)). “[A] motion to correct an illegal sentence is not an alternative method of obtaining belated appellate review of the proceedings that led to the imposition of judgment and sentence in a criminal case.”
Hearken – hearkening the verdict “serves the same purpose” as a poll of the jury