Teasley v. State, 1113

Decision Date15 April 1983
Docket NumberNo. 1113,1113
Citation54 Md.App. 454,458 A.2d 93
PartiesTyrone TEASLEY v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Michael R. Braudes, Asst. Public Defender, with whom was Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on the brief, for appellant.

Stephanie J. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Andrew L. Sonner, State's Atty., for Montgomery County and Robert Dean, Asst. State's Atty., for Montgomery County, on the brief, for appellee.

Submitted before MOYLAN, WILNER and ADKINS, JJ.

MOYLAN, Judge.

This seemingly trivial appeal takes on significance only because its single and insubstantial contention is showing recent signs of becoming dangerously epidemic.

The appellant, Tyrone Teasley, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury, presided over by Judge Rosalyn B. Bell, of armed robbery and the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Judge Bell sentenced the appellant to sentences of ten years for each offense, the sentences to be served consecutively. Upon this appeal, the appellant raises the single contention that Judge Bell, in sentencing, "misapplied the matrix system" of the sentencing guidelines now being tried, on an experimental basis, in Montgomery County and three other jurisdictions. Without any intention of being callous or cavalier, our response to the contention, no matter how we might dress it up verbally, has to reduce itself to a simple, "So what?"

Sentencing is a matter left almost exclusively to the broad discretion of the sentencing judge. Where the sentence falls within the statutory limits set by the Legislature, Roberts v. Warden, 242 Md. 459, 219 A.2d 254 (1966), and where there is no showing that it was "motivated by ill-will, prejudice or other improper considerations," Kaylor v. State, 285 Md. 66, 69, 400 A.2d 419 (1979), it is beyond appellate challenge. The effort at sentencing reform represented by the so-called sentencing guidelines and being conducted on an experimental basis is a commendable one. Participation, however, by the trial judges is on a voluntary basis. Our approval of an experimental effort to reform the law does not enlarge our appellate jurisdiction. Whether, therefore, a trial judge scrupulously follows, outrageously flouts or clumsily misapplies the sentencing guidelines is simply none of our appellate business, unless, of course, such flouting or misapplying should coincidentally trigger one of our more limited and traditional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Lee v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 3, 1986
    ...396 A.2d 243 (1979). Nothing in the law requires that Guidelines sentences or principles be applied." See also Teasley v. State, 54 Md.App. 454, 455-456, 458 A.2d 93 (1983), wherein we pointed "The effort at sentencing reform represented by the so-called sentencing guidelines and being cond......
  • Hamlet v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1985
    ...legislature, see Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27 § 643C (1982 Repl.Vol., 1985 Cum.Supp.) They are, however, not mandatory. See Teasley v. State, 54 Md.App. 454, 458 A.2d 93 (1983), aff'd, 298 Md. 364, 470 A.2d 337 (1984).2 We see no intrinsic constitutional infirmity in broadening plea negotiations so......
  • Speaks v. U.S.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 2008
    ...should coincidentally trigger one or more of our more limited and traditional reasons for reviewing a sentence." Teasley v. State, 54 Md.App. 454, 458 A.2d 93, 94 (1983), aff'd, 298 Md. 364, 470 A.2d 337 White v. United States, 958 A.2d 259, 266 (D.C.App. 2008). Our conclusion that appellan......
  • White v. U.S., No. 06-CF-942.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 16, 2008
    ...coincidentally trigger one or more of our more limited and traditional reasons for reviewing a sentence." Teasley v. State, 54 Md.App. 454, 458 A.2d 93, 94 (Ct.Spec.App.1983), aff'd, 298 Md. 364, 470 A.2d 337 Relying on United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT