State v. Williams

• Docket Number: 802-21
• Decision Date: 31 August 2022
• Parties: STATE OF MARYLAND v. ARTIIS RICARDO WILLIAMS
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

1

STATE OF MARYLAND v. ARTIIS RICARDO WILLIAMS

No. 802-21

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

August 31, 2022

Circuit Court for Harford County Case No. C-12-CR-19-001381

Kehoe Leahy, Beachley, JJ.

OPINION

Leahy J.

Since 1985, the Maryland General Assembly has required that inmates convicted of assaulting other inmates receive a "consecutive sentence." As currently codified, the "consecutive sentence" requirement of Maryland's inmate assault statute provides:

A sentence imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any sentence that the inmate was serving at the time of the crime or that had been imposed but was not yet being served at the time of sentencing.

Maryland Code (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol.), Criminal Law Article ("CR"), § 3-210(b) (emphasis added). The resolution of this appeal turns on the purpose and effect of the word "or" as it is used in CR § 3-210(b).

Appellant Artiis Ricardo Williams, struck another inmate with his fists on December 8, 2019, while incarcerated at the Harford County Detention Center. At a hearing on October 21, 2020-which we shall refer to as the "plea and sentencing hearing"- Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to second-degree assault on an inmate and was sentenced to one year and one day imprisonment, "consecutive to the last sentence to expire of all outstanding and unserved sentences."

Months later, Mr. Williams filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argued that his sentence was not permitted by law because it was imposed consecutive to two other consecutive sentences: a 25-year sentence that he was serving at the time he assaulted the other inmate; and a 12-year sentence for a separate crime which had been imposed after the assault took place but before he was ultimately sentenced for the assault conviction. In other words, he was sentenced to serve one year and one day at the expiration of his 12-year sentence which is consecutive to his 25-year sentence. He argued that the "or" in CR § 3-210(b) should be read as exclusive, requiring that he be sentenced to a term consecutive to either the sentence that he was "serving at the time of the crime" or a sentence that "had been imposed but was not yet being served at the time of sentencing."

At the conclusion of a hearing on July 8, 2021, the circuit court granted Mr. Williams's motion, finding that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because during the plea and sentencing hearing, he was advised that the sentence for his assault conviction would be imposed consecutive only to the 25-year sentence that he was serving at the time of the assault. The court then resentenced Mr. Williams to a term of one year and one day, consecutive only to the sentence that he was serving on the date he assaulted the other inmate. The State, pursuant to Maryland Code (1973, 2020 Repl. Vol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP"), § 12-302(c)(3), noted an appeal on August 3, 2021.^[1] It presents one question: "Did the circuit court act without authority when it modified [Mr.] Williams's sentence for assault on an inmate from a consecutive sentence to a concurrent one?"

We hold that CR § 3-210(b) requires that when an inmate is sentenced for an assault under CR § 3-210, the sentence imposed "shall" be consecutive to the last to expire of "any" sentence that the inmate was serving at the time of the assault as well as "any" sentence that had been imposed, but that the inmate was not yet serving, at the time of sentencing. In the underlying case, the court correctly found that Mr. Williams was not advised at his plea and sentencing hearing that his sentence would be consecutive to both of his previously imposed sentences. At this juncture, the court should have vacated the sentence and given Mr. Williams the opportunity to withdraw his plea and stand trial. Instead, the court imposed an illegal sentence. We reverse the court's judgment, vacate the illegal sentence, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

A. The Assault

In conjunction with the plea agreement presented to the court at the plea and sentencing hearing, the State read into the record a statement of facts, which Mr. Williams accepted with two modifications. The following account is based on the State's recital and Mr. Williams's corrections.

According to the State's proffer, Mr. Williams, while incarcerated at the Harford County Detention Center, assaulted another inmate on December 8, 2019. He initiated the incident by throwing a pair of dice and striking the inmate in the head. Standing only several feet away from Mr. Williams, the inmate responded by throwing an empty bottle at Mr. Williams. The bottle hit the phone that Mr. Williams was holding. Mr. Williams then struck the inmate in the head with "a closed fist[,] knocking him to the ground." Once the inmate was on the ground, Mr. Williams began socking him in the head with his fists, while another prisoner "stomp[ed]" on the inmate's head. The alteration ended after yet another prisoner "pulled everybody apart."^[2]

Later the same day, the inmate informed corrections staff that he needed to go to the hospital because his jaw was broken. The inmate was taken to Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, "where he was diagnosed with a bilateral fracture of his mandible, . . . and also a missing lower tooth." The mandible fracture required surgery.

Mr. Williams did not dispute that he struck the inmate in the head multiple times. He claimed, however, that he did not initiate the incident and that the inmate incorrectly identified him as the person who threw the dice.

The Grand Jury for Harford County, on December 31, 2019, returned a four-count indictment against Mr. Williams charging him with: (1) first-degree assault; (2) first-degree assault on another inmate; (3) second-degree assault; and (4) second-degree assault on another inmate.

B. The Other Sentences

At the time of the assault, Mr. Williams was serving a term of 40-years' incarceration, with all but 25 years suspended, for various possession and possession with intent to distribute narcotics convictions in Case No. C-12-CR-18-000561 ("case number 561").^[3] Mr. Williams was sentenced in case number 561 on December 6, 2019-just two days before the assault took place. Then, five days after he assaulted the inmate, Mr. Williams pleaded guilty in Case No. 12-K-17-001435 ("case number 1435"), involving an unrelated possession with intent to distribute charge for an incident that occurred in 2016. In case number 1435, Mr. Williams was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment, with all but 12 years suspended.^[4] The commitment record in case number 1435, entered on December 13, 2019, specifies that Mr. Williams's sentence is to be served consecutive to his sentence in case number 561.^[5]

C. The Underlying Plea Agreement

Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to second-degree assault on another inmate at the plea and sentencing hearing on October 21, 2020. In exchange for this plea, the State entered a nolle prosequi for the other counts and agreed to dismiss a parole violation in case number 561. The State advised the court that the parties had agreed to a sentence of one year and one day "consecutive to any other sentences which have not yet been completed." Defense counsel agreed with the terms proffered by the State but noted that, from her review of Mr. Williams's record, his sentence "would be consecutive to case C-12-CR-18-000561."

Defense counsel advised Mr. Williams of the elements of second-degree assault on an inmate, and readvised him that his sentence would be consecutive to his sentence in case number 561:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The maximum penalty is ten years, but it has to be imposed consecutive to any sentence that you have been . . . has been imposed whether you're serving or not yet serving. So that sentence would be the case with the 25 years that you received . . . ending in [0561] .... You understand that?

[MR. WILLIAMS]: Yes.

The court accepted the plea agreement after it found that Mr. Williams knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea. It imposed a sentence of one year and one day, with one day of credit, to be served "consecutive to any and all other sentences that you are currently serving." (Emphasis added). Immediately after the court announced the sentence, defense counsel, to clarify the terms of the sentence, interposed:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor. Just for clarification, when I read the statute, it does say inmate serving sentence that has been imposed, it's unclear as to whether that's from the date of the incident or the date of today. It's not very -- the statute [i]s very unclear.

I'm reading it as it should be imposed as to the sentence that he was serving at the time he committed the offense, which would have just been the case ending in 561.

[THE STATE]: Our agreement was that it would be consecutive to all unserved sentences.

THE COURT: I'm going to impose it consecutive to any and all sentences he is currently served [sic]. If you'd like to raise that issue with the Court of Special Appeals, if you can, I don't know that -- well, yeah, about the illegal sentence, if you want to, go right ahead.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If they want to clarify it, they'll clarify it.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: It is very unclear in the statute.

THE COURT: They can fix that. I can't. All right. And that will be the sentence of the [c]ourt. I'm not going to put you on probation for this, Mr. Williams. You serve - do your time and you'll be finished with me.

The commitment record, docketed the same day, reflects that Mr. Williams's sentence was to be served "consecutive to the last sentence to expire of all outstanding and unserved sentences."

D. Motion to Correct an...