Hicks v. State, 215
Decision Date | 01 September 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 215,215 |
Citation | 485 A.2d 1021,61 Md.App. 183 |
Parties | Marvin HICKS v. STATE of Maryland. , |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Adrienne E. Volenik, Assigned Public Defender, Baltimore (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, Baltimore, on brief), for appellant.
Bernard A. Penner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Kurt L. Schmoke, State's Atty. for Baltimore City and Ruth Finch, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, for Baltimore City on brief), for appellee.
Submitted before MOYLAN, GETTY and BELL, JJ.
In this case, we are called on to decide whether an originally suspended sentence which is reimposed may be made to run consecutively to an intervening sentence that does not specify whether it is to be consecutive to or concurrent with any other sentence. Appellant Marvin Hicks appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Johnson, J.) reimposing an originally suspended eighteen month sentence and making that sentence run consecutive to another eighteen month sentence appellant was already serving. We agree with the sentence imposed by the circuit court.
The sentencing sequence may be set out as follows:
1. On July 28, 1981, appellant was found guilty of theft of under $300.00 and was placed on probation before judgment for one year. Appellant's probation was subsequently violated and his probation before judgment was struck.
Sentence A: Judge James Perrott on April 27, 1982, imposed upon appellant a sentence of 18 months to the Department of Corrections, to be suspended, with one year of supervised probation.
2. On November 7, 1983, appellant was convicted of attempted burglary and failure to appear in the District Court.
Sentence B: Appellant was sentenced by the District Court (Wahl, J.) to 18 months imprisonment for each offense, to run concurrently with each other.
3. On February 22, 1984, the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (Johnson, J.) found appellant in violation of the probation ordered by Judge Perrott.
Sentence A revisited: Judge Johnson reimposed appellant's original 18 month sentence and stated that it was to run consecutive to the 18 month sentence imposed by Judge Wahl.
Generally, sentencing is within the judge's discretion, Kaylor v. State, 285 Md. 66, 400 A.2d 419 (1979). His discretion is not unfettered, however. He is not permitted to be motivated by ill-will, prejudice or other improper consideration, or to impose sentences that constitute cruel and unusual punishment or that fall outside statutory limits. Kaylor, supra, 285 Md. at 69, 400 A.2d 419 (citations omitted). In State v. White, 41 Md.App. 514, 397 A.2d 299 (1979), we held that a judge also must relate the sentence to the status quo at the moment of sentencing. White, supra, 41 Md.App. at 515, 397 A.2d 299.
Appellant argues that sentence B, imposed by Judge Wahl, was obviously intended to run concurrently with sentence A, and that Judge Johnson...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Lee v. State
-
Nelson v. State
...Kaylor v. State, 285 Md. 66, 400 A.2d 419 (1979); DiPietrantonio v. State, 61 Md.App. 528, 487 A.2d 676 (1985); Hicks v. State, 61 Md.App. 183, 485 A.2d 1021 (1985). Therefore, there can be no question but that there was no abuse when the court exercised its discretion to make the original ......
-
DiPietrantonio v. State
...299 (1979). We made an effort, with but partial success, in Raines v. State, 54 Md.App. 543, 458 A.2d 1264 (1983), and Hicks v. State, 61 Md.App. 183, 485 A.2d 1021 (1984), to "write around" White. It is now our considered judgment that the cleanest way to remove confusion is to extirpate i......