Galdamez v. State, 090319 MDSCA, 0528-2018
|Opinion Judge:||Shaw Geter, J.|
|Party Name:||JOSE MIGUEL GALDAMEZ v. STATE OF MARYLAND|
|Judge Panel:||Wright, Shaw Geter, Salmon, James P., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.|
|Case Date:||September 03, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Special Appeals of Maryland|
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 00000116567C
Wright, Shaw Geter, Salmon, James P., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Shaw Geter, J.
In 2011, Appellant, Jose Miguel Galdamez, pled guilty, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, to one count of sexual abuse of a minor and one count of second-degree sexual offense. The circuit court sentenced appellant to 15 years' imprisonment for each offense, to run consecutively.
In 2018, appellant, acting pro se, filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence and for Other Appropriate Relief, which the circuit court summarily denied without a hearing. Appellant noted this timely appeal, and presents us with two questions, 1 which we have rephrased and consolidated into one: 1) Did the circuit court properly deny his motion to correct an illegal sentence? For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and remand the case for the circuit court to impose a period of extended parole supervision consistent with this opinion.
Because the facts of the underlying offense are of little relevance to our discussion, we shall only briefly mention them. On March 14, 2011, appellant pled guilty as part of a binding plea agreement to one count of sexual abuse of a minor and one count of second-degree sexual offense, for having anal intercourse with a five-year old boy between May and August 2010. Pursuant to that guilty plea agreement, in exchange for appellant's guilty pleas, the State would seek a sentence not exceeding 36 years' imprisonment, and the circuit court would impose a sentence not exceeding 30 years' imprisonment.
On April 12, 2011, the court sentenced appellant to two 15-year consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for each offense to which he pled guilty. During the sentencing proceeding appellant was notified that he would be a lifetime sexual offender registrant. Notably, there was no mention of extended parole supervision during the guilty plea or sentencing proceedings.
Seven years later, appellant filed a pleading titled Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence and for Other Appropriate Relief wherein he claimed that his sentence is illegal because the circuit court failed to impose a period of "extended parole supervision" as it was required by statute to do. From that standpoint, appellant claims that the illegality in his sentence should not be remedied...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP