Preview:

State v. Wilkins No. 65, September Term 2005

HEADNOTES : In 1972, Ralph Edward Wilkins received a life sentence for first-degree murder. On direct appeal to the Court of Special A ppeals he ra ised num erous issue s but did not raise any issues as to the impro priety of the sen tencing ord er. The interm ediate appe llate court affirmed. Mo re than thirty years later, Wilkins filed a petition for post conviction relief alleging that the sentencing judge failed to recognize his right to exercise discretion in the imposition of the life sentence. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County granted the petition in part to allow Wilkins to file a belated motion for modification of sentence. Wilkins requested that the court hold his motion for modification of sentence in abeyance. Sub sequ ently, Wilkins filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence alleging the same defect in sentencing that he alleged in his petition for post conviction relief. The court denied the motion. Wilkins appealed. The Court of Special Appeals held that the sentencing court's failure to recogniz e its right to con sider suspe nding a po rtion of the life sentence rendered the sentence illegal within the meaning of Rule 4-345 (a). W e reversed , holding tha t a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not an appropriate vehicle to raise the question of abuse of judicial d iscretion occurr ing dur ing sen tencing . Further, the alleged defect in the sentencing procedure should have been raised on direct appeal from the conviction and sentence imposed in this case. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, a life sentence for murder in the first degree is not an illegal sentence within the contemplation of Rule 4-345(a). In an appropriate case, the alleged defect in sentencing may b e a proper subjec t for po st conv iction re lief.

In the Circu it Court for P rince Geo rge's Cou nty Criminal Case No. 11,187

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 65 September Term, 2005

____________________________________ STATE OF MARYLAND

v.

RALPH EDWARD WILKINS ____________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ. ______________________________ ____ Opinion by Greene, J. Bell, C.J. and Harrell, J., Concur and Dissent. ____________________________________ Filed: June 9, 2006

Ralph Edwar d Wilkins w as tried befo re a jury in the C ircuit Court for Prince G eorge's County on December 6 through 8, 1971, and convicted of murder in the first degree. On January 24, 1 972, he w as sentence d to life imprisonment. On direct appeal to the Court of Special Appea ls, that court affirm ed the ju dgme nt and s entenc e. Wilkins v. State, 16 Md. App. 587, 30 0 A.2d 411 (1 973), aff'd , 270 Md. 62, 310 A.2d 39 (1973), cert. denied, Wilkins v. Maryland, 415 U .S. 992 , 94 S.C t. 1592, 3 9 L.Ed .2d 889 (1974 ). On June 16, 2003, more than thirty years after his direct appeal of the judgment and sentence entered against him, Wilkins filed a petition for post conviction relief in the C ircuit Court for Prince George's County. He contended that the sentencing judge abused his discretion by failing to recognize his authority to suspend any part of the life sentence imposed. On January 6, 2004, the court determined that there w as no merit to Wilkins's claim that the senten cing judge abused h is discretion. Nonetheless, the court granted partial post conviction relief by allowing Wilkins to file a belated motion for modification of sentence within 90 days.1 On February 9, 2004, Wilkins filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Special A ppeals based on the Circuit Court's ruling which denied in part his petition for post conviction relief. The intermediate appellate court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Its mandate issued on June 8, 2004. Subsequently, on June 9, 2004, Wilkins filed a second notice of appeal to the

Pursuant to the Circuit Court's directive, on March 15, 2004, Wilkins filed a motion for modification of sentence. On A pril 28, 2004, Wilkins requ ested that the Circuit Court hold his motion for modification in abeyance. Thereafter, on May 6, 2004, Wilkins filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Circuit Court denied that motion on May 19, 2004.

1

Court of Special Appeals. Wilkins based this appeal on the Circuit Court's ruling dated May 19, 2004, which denied his motion to correc t an illegal sente nce. Aga in, the interme diate appellate court dis miss ed W ilkin s's appeal as untimely. 2 Although Wilkins's appeal was dismissed as untimely, the court reconsidered pursuant to Md. Rule 8-5023 and reinstated the appeal. The intermediate appellate court held that the sentencing court's "failure to recognize its right to consider suspending a portion of . . . [a life ] sentence renders the sentence illegal." Wilkins v. Sta te , 162 Md. App. 512, 525, 875 A.2d 231, 239 (2005). We granted certiorari to review the decision o f the Court of Sp ecial Appeals in vaca ting Wilkins's sentence, as an illegal sentence, and remanding the case to the trial court for re-sentencing. State v. Wilkins, 389 Md. 124, 88 3 A.2d 914 (2 005). In our review of the judgment of the intermediate appellate co urt, we focus primarily on the May 19, 2004, ruling of the Circ uit Court denying W ilkins's motio n to correct a n illegal senten ce and the intermediate appellate court's reversal of that ruling. We need not reach the merits of Wilkins's claim that the sentencing judge failed to exercise d iscretion. W e hold that a sentencing judge's fa ilure to recognize his or her right to exercise discretion in the imposition of a sentence does not

Wilkins's briefs were due in the Court of Special Appeals on August 23, 2004, but were n ot filed in court b y that date . Rule 8-502. Filing of briefs. (a) Duty to file; tim e. Unless oth erwise ord ered by the ap pellate court: (1) Appe llant's br ief. Within 40 days after the filing of the record, an appellant other than a cross-appellant shall file a brief conforming to the requirements of Rule 8-503. -23

2

render the sentence illegal w ithin the meaning of M d. Rule 4-345(a). 4 Discussion The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. Rule 4-345 (a). The denial of a motion to correct an illega l senten ce is app ealable . State v. Kanaras , 357 Md. 170, 177, 742 A.2d 508, 512 (1999). An illegal sentence is a sentence "not permitted b y law." Walczak v. State , 302 Md. 422, 427, 488 A.2d 949, 951 (1985). In Holme s v. State , 362 Md. 190, 195-96, 763 A.2d 737, 740 (2000) this Court stated that "[a] sentence that is not permitted by statute is an illegal sentence." (Citations omitted.) Judge Moylan expounded on the concept of an illegal sentence in Corcora n v. State , 67 Md. App. 252, 507 A.2d 200 cert. denied, 307 M d. 83, 51 2 A.2d 377, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 932, 107 S.Ct. 404, 93 L.Ed.2d 357 (1986). He said: The notion of an "illegal sentence" within the contemplation of the Walczak decision deals with substantive law, not procedural law. It has obvious reference to a sentence which is beyond th e statutorily granted powe r of the j udge to impos e. It does not re motely suggest that a sentence, proper on its face, becomes an "illegal sentence" because of some arguable procedural flaw in the sentencing procedure. Corcoran, 67 Md. App. at 255, 507 A.2d at 202. See also Burch v. S tate , 346 Md. 253, 289, cert. denied, 522 U.S . 1001 (1997) ("N ot every procedural irregularity, even in a capital sentencing procee ding, re sults in `a senten ce not p ermitted by law.'" ). In other word s, a

4

Rule 4-345, Sentencing

Download State v. Wilkins.pdf

Maryland Law