Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 46 September Term, 1998 ___________________________________________

PETER P. HERRERA

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

__________________________________________ Bell, C.J., Eldridge Rodowsky *Chasanow Raker Wilner Cathell, JJ. ___________________________________________ Per Curiam __________________________________________

*Chasanow, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court but did not participate in the decision and adoption of this opinion
Filed: December 20, 1999

On May 14, 1987, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Peter P. Herrera pled guilty to first degree murder and certain lesser offenses. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on July 30, 1987. Under the law, he was eligible for parole after serving 15 years or the equivalent of 15 years considering the allowances for diminution of an inmate's term. A Parole Commission recommendation in favor of parole would be subject to the Governor's approval. Within 90 days of his sentence, Herrera filed a motion under Maryland Rule 4-345(b) for modification or reduction of his sentence.1 No action on this motion was taken for over 10 years. Finally, on December 15, 1997, a hearing on the motion was held. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County denied the motion on January 19, 1998. Herrera took a timely appeal from the denial of the motion, and, before any proceedings in the Court of Special Appeals, this Court issued a writ of certiorari. Herrera v. Stae, 350 Md. 279, 711

1

Rule 4-345(b) provides as follows: "(b) Modification or reduction -- Time for. The court has revisory power and control over a sentence upon a motion filed within 90 days after its imposition (1) in the District Court, if an appeal has not been perfected, and (2) in a circuit court, whether or not an appeal has been filed. Thereafter, the court has revisory power and control over the sentence in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, or as provided in section (d) of this Rule. The court may not increase a sentence after the sentence has been imposed, except that it may correct an evident mistake in the announcement of a sentence if the correction is made on the record before the defendant leaves the courtroom following the sentencing proceeding."

-2-

A.2d 871 (1998). Herrera argues that certain actions by the Commissioner of Correction, the Maryland Parole Commission, and the Governor have effectively changed his sentence of life imprisonment to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and that such change violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions. See Article 1,

Download Herrera v. State.pdf

Maryland Law