Farmer v. State
| Docket Number | 31, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Decision Date | 26 August 2022 |
| Citation | 481 Md. 203,281 A.3d 834 |
| Parties | Michael FARMER v. STATE of Maryland |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Jeffrey M. Ross, Asst. Public Defender (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender of Maryland of Baltimore, MD) on brief for Petitioner.
Argued by Jer Welter, Assistant Attorney General (Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland of Baltimore, MD) on brief for Respondent.
Amici Curie the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, Nathaniel Foster, Calvin McNeill, Kenneth Tucker, Maryland Parole Partnership, Family Support Network, Re-entry Clinic at American University Washington College of Law, Youth, Education and Justice Clinic at the University of Maryland School of Law, and the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth: Deborah Jeon, Esquire, Sonia Kumar, Esquire, Tierney Peprah, Esquire, ACLU of Maryland, 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 350, Baltimore, MD 21211, Michelle McGeogh, Esquire, Timothy McCormack, Esquire, Maraya Pratt, Esquire, Ballard Spahr LLP, 300 Lombard Street, 18th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202, Lisa Swaminathan, Esquire, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Argued before:* Getty, C.J., *McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, JJ.
In 10 simple words, Maryland Rule 4-345(a) provides that "[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time." This provision is a necessary backstop to remedy a situation where a sentence in a criminal case that never should have been imposed or that is contrary to law escapes correction during the normal appeal and post-conviction process. However, a motion under the rule is not a vehicle to cure all ills in a criminal case that can be said, in some way, to be "illegal." An illegal sentence, for purposes of this rule, is one where the illegality "inheres" in the sentence; it is not every sentence where a failure to comply with a law affects the sentence in some way.
Petitioner Michael Farmer pled guilty in 2002 to committing two brutal murders when he was 17 years old. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. As a result of those sentences and a consecutive sentence for an unrelated assault, he will not be eligible for parole, at the earliest, until he has served more than 25 years in prison. Supreme Court decisions issued during the past two decades have construed the ban on "cruel and unusual" punishments in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution to require that sentences imposed on a juvenile offender like Mr. Farmer afford the offender a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation" – a condition generally thought to be satisfied by the possibility of parole. Citing those cases, Mr. Farmer filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He asserted that his sentence does not include the "meaningful opportunity" required by the Eighth Amendment because the Maryland parole laws do not provide a right to State-furnished counsel to assist an inmate during the parole process. Therefore, he asserts, his sentence is illegal.
The Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals rejected his various arguments supporting that claim. We hold that Mr. Farmer's claim does not fall within the category of claims cognizable under Rule 4-345(a).
The parole process in Maryland is overseen by the Maryland Parole Commission, a unit of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services ("the Department"). Maryland Code, Correctional Services Article ("CS"), § 7-101 et seq . The Commission consists of 10 commissioners appointed by the Secretary of the Department, with the approval of the Governor and the advice and consent of the Senate. CS § 7-202. The Commission has the "exclusive power" to authorize the release of an inmate on parole. CS § 7-205(a)(1).1 Among other things, the commissioners (and, in some cases, hearing examiners employed by the Commission) conduct parole hearings to consider the release of eligible inmates serving sentences in Maryland prisons. CS §§ 7-204(b)(2), 7-205. As directed by statute, the Commission has adopted regulations governing the parole process. CS § 7-207 ; COMAR 12.08. Those regulations distinguish, to some extent, between adult and juvenile offenders.2
For all parole-eligible inmates in Maryland, the Commission must consider a list of factors that assess the inmate's moral culpability, at both the time of the offense and the time of parole hearing, as well as the inmate's capacity to return to society as a productive and law-abiding person. See generally CS § 7-305 ; COMAR 12.08.01.18A.3 Accordingly, the Commission is to consider numerous factors and attributes of the inmate. Some items concern the inmate's track record before incarceration, such as a prior criminal record, past use of controlled substances, and the circumstances surrounding the crime (although these circumstances "diminish in significance" after an initial parole hearing). See COMAR 12.08.01.18A(5)(a),(e),(l ). Other items include an inmate's demonstrated improvement during incarceration, such as participation in institutional and self-help programs and "demonstrated emotional maturity and insight into the inmate's problems." COMAR 12.08.01.18A(5)(b),(f). Yet other items concern the inmate's present outlook, including the inmate's "current attitude toward society, discipline, and other authority" and "ability and readiness to assume obligations." COMAR 12.08.01.18A(5)(d),(j). Other items address an inmate's potential to succeed upon release, including vocational and educational training, employment plans and job potential, family status and stability, access to resources, and the "parole plan." COMAR 12.08.01.18A(5)(c),(h),(i),(k).
To ensure that juvenile offenders serving life sentences with the possibility of parole have the constitutionally mandated "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,"4 the Commission must also consider additional factors beyond what is normally required for adult offenders. See COMAR 12.08.01.18A(3)-(4). First, "[w]hen deciding if an inmate serving a life sentence for a crime committed while younger than 18 years old is suitable for parole, the Commission shall consider whether the inmate has adequately demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation since commission of the crime." COMAR 12.08.01.18A(3). Then, the Commission must consider mitigating factors regarding the inmate's circumstances at the time of the crime: the inmate's age, maturity, home environment, outside pressures, and educational background. COMAR 12.18.01.18A(4)(a)-(c),(e),(f). Additionally, the Commission must consider "whether the prisoner's character developed since the time of the crime in a manner that indicates the prisoner will comply with the conditions of release" and, as determined to be relevant, "other factors or circumstances unique to prisoners who committed crimes at the time that individual was a juvenile." COMAR 12.18.01.18A(4)(d),(g).
To assist the Commission in assessing the suitability for release of an inmate in a State correctional facility, the Division of Correction undertakes an investigation of the inmate. CS § 7-301(a)(1).5 An inmate eligible for parole is to receive a hearing unless, following a review, the Commission "determines that no useful purpose would be served by a hearing." COMAR 12.08.01.17A(1),(3). The Commission's regulations describe a parole hearing as follows:
A parole hearing is actually an interview of the inmate, and attendance shall be restricted to parole personnel and a representative of the institution. On occasions, others may be invited by the Commission to attend, provided their attendance does not impede the prisoner being interviewed. The hearings are private and shall be held in an informal manner, allowing the prisoner the opportunity to give free expression to his views and feelings relating to his case. Formal presentations by an attorney, relatives, and others interested in the inmate are not permitted at the parole hearings. Attorneys, relatives, and others who are interested in the inmate may discuss the relative merits or other factors of the case with the Commission at its executive offices, any time before or after a parole hearing.
COMAR 12.08.01.18C(1). If a victim makes a timely request, a parole hearing is to be open to the public in accordance with the Commission's regulations. CS § 7-304 ; COMAR 12.08.02. The hearing is to be electronically or stenographically recorded and, for a juvenile offender serving a life sentence, the recording is to be retained until the next parole hearing or the conclusion of any action seeking judicial review, whichever is later. COMAR 12.08.01.18C(2)-(4).
An inmate is to receive "adequate and timely written notice" in advance of the hearing. CS § 7-303(a). The notice is to advise the inmate that the inmate – or the inmate's representative – may examine any document that the Commission or a hearing examiner will use in determining the inmate's suitability for release on parole. CS § 7-303(b)(1)(i).6
For an inmate serving a life sentence, two commissioners conduct the parole hearing. COMAR 12.08.01.17A(7)(f). If the two commissioners do not agree whether an inmate should be paroled, the case is referred to a three-commissioner panel for decision by majority vote. CS § 7-307(b). In either case, if the decision is in favor of parole for that inmate, the Commission en banc – defined as a majority of the commissioners – must consider the case. COMAR 12.08.01.17A(7)(f), 23A. For an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime committed after October 1, 2021, six commissioners must affirmatively vote in favor of parole for the inmate to be released on parole. CS § 7-307(c).
A written decision is to be prepared...
To continue reading
Request your trial