Mateen v. Galley

• Decision Date: 11 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. 1836,1836
• Citation: 807 A.2d 708,146 Md. App. 623
• Parties: Muhsin R. MATEEN, a/k/a Jerome Allen Williams, v. Jon GALLEY, Warden, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

807 A.2d 708

146 Md. App. 623

Muhsin R. MATEEN, a/k/a Jerome Allen Williams, v.Jon GALLEY, Warden, et al.

No. 1836, Sept. Term, 2001.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

September 11, 2002.

Muhsin R. Mateen, Cresaptown, for appellant.

Scott S. Oakley, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on the brief) Baltimore, for appellee.

Submitted SALMON, KENNEY, and ADKINS, JJ.

ADKINS, Judge.

Muhsin R. Mateen, appellant, has been incarcerated on a first degree murder conviction since September 9, 1972.In a 1997petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Mateen presented what we view as two distinct grounds for habeas relief: (1) that his 50 year sentence for first degree murder was illegally increased to life with all but 50 years suspended, and (2) that he has been and is now being denied meaningful consideration for parole, pre-release security classification, work release, and family leave, as a result of what has become known as Maryland's "life means life" policy.¹In this appeal, Mateen asks us to hold that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City erred in denying his habeas petition because he stated cognizable claims for relief based on both his "sentence increase" and "meaningful consideration" complaints, and because he was entitled to, but did not receive, a hearing on those habeas claims.

We conclude that the change in Mateen's sentence was a permissible correction of an illegal sentence, but that this correction should have been made on the record after notice to Mateen.Nevertheless, we also conclude that the failure to hold a sentence correction hearing was harmless in the unique circumstances of Mateen's case.As to the "meaningful consideration" claims, we hold that Mateen has not stated any cognizable claim on which he would be entitled to habeas relief.

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On November 17, 1972, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City convicted Mateen of first degree murder in a bench trial.²He was sentenced to a life term with the possibility of parole, and committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections("DOC").

On October 20, 1981, however, a post conviction court ordered that Mateen be re-sentenced, because the sentencing judge had failed to consider suspension of a portion of that sentence as an another sentencing alternative.We affirmed the post conviction order.

On March 19, 1982, Mateen appeared for re-sentencing before Judge Marshall A. Levin, the same judge who imposed his original sentence.Mateen's habeas petition focuses on what happened at this resentencing hearing.There is no transcript of the hearing.The court's commitment record of March 19, 1982, however, states that the announced sentence was "Fifty (50) years."Similarly, the DOC's "Sentence And Detainer Status Change Report" dated April 6, 1982, states: "Sentence reduced on 3-19-82 to 50 yrs. from Life[.]"

Enter the Maryland Parole Commission.More than seven months after the re-sentencing hearing, by letter dated October 28, 1982, the chairman of the Parole Commission wrote to Judge Levin, requesting clarification as to

whether this commitment [record] is correct since the Annotated Code of Maryland mandates [that] if a person is found guilty of First Degree Murder the sentence must be life imprisonment.Was it your intention to sentence [Mateen] to life imprisonment and suspend all but 50 years or was [Mateen] found guilty of a lesser count and sentenced to 50 years incarceration?...

By letter dated November 3, 1982, Judge Levin responded as follows: "Please forgive my inartistic sentencing.It was my intention to sentence him to life and suspend all but fifty years."On November 16, 1982, the DOC issued another sentence change report, stating that Mateen's "sentence now reads: Life—suspend 50 yrs."In the remarks section, it explained why: "Enclosed you will find copy of letter rec'd from Judge Levin explaining change of sentence."

From that point in time, the DOC and the Parole Commission treated Mateen as a "lifer," which, as detailed below, has had significantly negative consequences for Mateen's efforts to obtain parole and a pre-release security classification, and to participate in work release and family leave programs during his incarceration.Pointing to these consequences, Mateen seeks habeas relief against the Governor, the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the Commissioner of Correction, the Chairperson of the Maryland Parole Commission, and the Warden of Western Correctional Institution.³

DISCUSSION

Before addressing the merits of Mateen's habeas petition, we must resolve two threshold issues.

First, the State argues that "Mateen's claims were not cognizable under the circuit court's limited habeas corpus jurisdiction."It contends that Mateen instead must pursue his "sentencing ambiguity" claims through a motion to correct illegal sentence under Md. Rule 4-345, in which the State's Attorney has the opportunity to participate.In addition, the State asserts, Mateen's appeal should not be considered because no appeal lies from the denial of a habeas petition challenging the legality of a sentence.

We disagree with the State's narrow reading of appellant's habeas petition.In Part I, we conclude that it is an appealable habeas challenge on both claims raised in the habeas petition.

Second, Mateen argues that this Court must vacate the habeas court's order denying his petition because he was entitled to, but did not get, a hearing on the petition.We disagree, and explain why in Part II of this opinion.

In Parts III and IV, we address the substance of Mateen's habeas claims.

I.

Propriety Of Habeas Relief

A.Confinement Under An Increased Sentence

Md. Rule 4-345 limits the court's revisory power over legal sentences, but preserves plenary power over illegal sentences.

(a) Illegal sentence.The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.

(b) Modification or reduction—Time for.The court has revisory power and control over a sentence upon a motion filed within 90 days after its imposition... (2) in a circuit court, whether or not an appeal has been filed.Thereafter, the court has revisory power and control over the sentence in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity....The court may not increase a sentence after the sentence has been imposed, except that it may correct an evident mistake in the announcement of a sentence if the correction is made on the record before the defendant leaves the courtroom following the sentencing proceeding....

(d) Open court hearing.The court may modify, reduce, correct, or vacate a sentence only on the record in open court, after hearing from the defendant, the State, and from each victim or victim's representative who requests an opportunity to be heard....If the court grants the motion, the court ordinarily shall prepare and file or dictate into the record a statement setting forth the reasons on which the ruling is based.

An inmate's claim that his sentence is illegal as a result of substantive legal errors by the sentencing court should be redressed through a direct appeal or a motion to correct the sentence on the grounds of illegality.⁴SeeState v. Kanaras,357 Md. 170, 185, 742 A.2d 508(1999).In contrast, an inmate's claim that his incarceration is illegal because of the illegal actions of the Commissioner of Corrections or the Maryland Parole Commission may be redressed in a civil habeas corpus proceeding.Seeid.

The State asserts that "Mateen's claims were not cognizable under the circuit court's limited habeas corpus jurisdiction" because "[a]n inaccurate commitment record does not require release on habeas corpus, it only requires correction of the commitment record."In support, it cites Lewis v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary,209 Md. 625, 120 A.2d 194, cert. denied sub nom.Lewis v. Pepersack,351 U.S. 911, 76 S.Ct. 706, 100 L.Ed. 1445(1956);Carter v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary,210 Md. 657, 124 A.2d 574, cert. denied,352 U.S. 900, 77 S.Ct. 136, 1 L.Ed.2d 89(1956);andMd. Rule 4-621 regarding correction of clerical mistakes in records of a criminal proceeding.

These authorities, however, address only what a court may do when a commitment record contains a clerical error.Without a transcript of the March 19, 1982 re-sentencing hearing, there is no documentary basis upon which the habeas court or this Court could possibly make a finding that the "Fifty (50) years" sentence stated in the March 19, 1982 commitment record was merely a clerical error by the courtroom clerk in recording the sentence, rather than an error of law by the judge in pronouncing it.Given this uncertainty, we cannot ignore the latter possibility.For the reasons set forth in Part III, we therefore assume that the 50 year sentence was the product of judicial error.

The State also argues more generally that Mateen's habeas petition and appeal improperly challenge the legality of his sentence, rather than the legality of his confinement.We disagree with that characterization.Mateen specifically asserts that his sentence was improperly increased as a result of the "illegal" actions of the Parole Commission and the DOC—i.e., corresponding with the sentencing judge and then altering his sentence on the basis of the judge's off-the-record, post hoc explanation of his subjective sentencing "intention."He points to the DOC's 1982 sentence change report, which cites the sentencing judge's response to the Parole Commission's request for "clarification," and the DOC and Parole Commission's subsequent treatment of him as a lifer without affording him notice or a hearing regarding the sentence change, as proof that he is being confined illegally by the DOC and the Parole Commission, under a sentence that was illegally increased.In these circumstances, we conclude that Mateen has challenged the legality of his incarceration under an increased sentence, rather than merely challenging the...