Holmes v. State
Decision Date | 06 December 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 49,49 |
Citation | 763 A.2d 737,362 Md. 190 |
Parties | Wayne Kelvin HOLMES v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
Kathryn Grill Graeff, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Maryland, on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and LAWRENCE F. RODOWSKY (retired, specially assigned), JJ.
The Court having issued a Per Curiam Order and mandate in the above case on December 5, 2000, it is this 6th day of December, 2000,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Per Curiam Order and mandate be, and they are hereby, recalled and the following Per Curiam Order is issued in place of the Per Curiam Order dated December 5, 2000 as set forth below:
For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 6th day of December, 2000,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the case be remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City with directions to vacate the home detention as a condition of probation. The judgment of the Circuit Court is otherwise affirmed. Mandate to issue forthwith; costs to be paid by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. RAKER, Judge.
Wayne Kelvin Holmes (Appellant) pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The circuit court sentenced him to eight years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently, all suspended with three years probation, two of those years to be served in home detention. Appellant filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, contending that the trial court lacked the authority to order home detention as a condition of his probation. The motion was denied, and Appellant noted a timely appeal, arguing only the unlawfulness of home detention as a condition of probation. By an Order issued on December 6, 2000, with an opinion to follow, this Court remanded the case to the circuit court with directions to vacate the home detention as a condition of probation, but otherwise affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. We now state our reasons underlying that Order.
On July 7, 1999, Appellant pled guilty to possession of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. At the hearing, the following colloquy took place:
Following this colloquy, Appellant was sworn and entered his plea of guilty. In the plea voir dire, his counsel asked him: "Has anyone made you any promises other than this plea agreement to get you to plead guilty?" In response, Appellant answered, "No." Appellant signed an order of probation and an agreement to comply with the rules and regulations of the Alert Home Detention Program.
On August 4, 1999, this Court issued its opinion in Bailey v. State, 355 Md. 287, 734 A.2d 684 (1999). Based on that decision, and alleging that he was "financially strapped" due to the detention program's $100.00 per week fee, Appellant filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence. The trial court denied the motion, distinguishing Bailey on the ground that Appellant had pled guilty and agreed to the term of probation.
This Court granted Appellant's Petition for Writ of Certiorari before consideration in the Court of Special Appeals to consider whether a trial court, in the absence of statutory authority, may order home detention as a condition of probation where the defendant pleads guilty and home detention is imposed pursuant to judgment entered on that plea. We hold that it may not.
In Bailey, this Court held that, "in the absence of statutory authority, a court in this state may not impose home detention or house arrest as a condition of probation." Bailey, 355 Md. at 299, 734 A.2d at 690. The Maryland General Assembly has authorized courts to impose a sentence of confinement as a condition of probation in Allegany County, Calvert County, Charles County, Garrett County, Howard County,1 and St. Mary's County. See Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 2000 Supp.) Art. 27, § 641(a)(1)(i)(2). Baltimore City is not listed among those jurisdictions. Thus, the offer of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to permit Appellant to serve a portion of his sentence in home detention was impermissible; the trial court had no authority to impose home detention as a condition of probation, and Appellant's consent could not make lawful that which was beyond the authority of the court.2 We reject the State's argument that, although home detention as a condition of probation ordinarily would be illegal, it should be upheld where it is part of a plea agreement.3 A sentence that is not permitted by statute is an illegal sentence. See Matthews v. State, 304 Md. 281, 285-86, 498 A.2d 655, 657 (1985); Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422, 433, 488 A.2d 949, 954 (1985). A defendant cannot consent to an illegal sentence. See White v. State, 322 Md. 738, 749, 589 A.2d 969, 974 (1991) ( ); State v. Woody, 613 N.W.2d 215, 218 (Iowa 2000) ( ); State v. Nemeth, 214 N.J.Super. 324, 519 A.2d 367, 368 (App.Div.1986) ( ); McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Tenn.2000) ( ).
We next consider the issue of the appropriate remedy. Appellant does not want to withdraw his guilty plea. Instead, he argues that, inasmuch as he has served approximately sixteen months in home detention, striking the condition of home detention is the proper remedy.
Some courts have determined that providing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pitts v. State
...been authorized by statute, such as restitution, Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422, 488 A.2d 949 (1985) or home detention, Holmes v. State, 362 Md. 190, 763 A.2d 737 (2000). Another type of inherent illegality and the one pertinent to the case before us is a sentence that is illegal because it ......
-
Hoile v. State
...been imposed on the defendant for certain assault charges because the defendant was acquitted of those charges); Holmes v. State, 362 Md. 190, 195-96, 763 A.2d 737, 740 (2000) (sentence of probation with home detention as a condition of probation was illegal because the trial court lacked s......
-
Pitts v. State
...been authorized by statute, such as restitution, Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422, 488 A.2d 949 (1985) or home detention, Holmes v. State, 362 Md. 190, 763 A.2d 737 (2000). Another type of inherent illegality and the one pertinent to the case before us is a sentence that is illegal because it ......
-
Carlini v. State
...the imposition of sanctions, as a part of the sentence, where the sanctions had never been legally authorized. In Holmes v. State, 362 Md. 190, 763 A.2d 737 (2000), the Court held that, in the absence of statutory authority, the imposition of house detention or house arrest as a condition o......
-
Sentencing Motions
...v. State, 355 Md. 651, 662-63 (1999). Even if a defendant consents to a sentence, it may still be challenged as illegal. Holmes v. State, 362 Md. 190, 195-96 (2000); White v. State, 322 Md. 738, 749 (1991). 1. Filing a motion to correct illegal sentence The defendant may file a motion to co......
-
Terms of Plea Agreements
...to vacate the sex registry component of the agreement because the remainder of the sentence was adequate. Accord Holmes v. State, 362 Md. 190, 196-97 (2000); Flaherty v. State, 322 Md. 356, 366 (1991). In such scenarios, the defendant may accept the agreement, as modified, or withdraw the g......