Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 05 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 74,74 |
| Citation | 227 Md. 99,175 A.2d 775 |
| Parties | William W. WILSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Jack I. Mullen, Cumberland, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. McCarthy, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James S. Getty, State's Atty. for Allegany County, Cumberland, for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and SYBERT, JJ.
William W. Wilson was sentenced on July 6, 1960, by the Circuit Court for Allegany County to three years imprisonment for breaking and stealing property over the value of one dollar. He had plead guilty to the charge, and no appeal was noted from the judgment and sentence. He had plead not guilty to the other two counts of the indictment--larceny and receiving, and the State had accepted the pleas.
On February 17, 1961, Wilson filed a motion 'to strike out and correct an illegal sentence under Rule 744a * * *.' That rule provides: 'The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.' His claim was that the count to which he plead guilty was ambiguous since his plea could be construed as one to Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 342--breaking with intent to steal--for which the maximum penalty is eighteen months imprisonment, as well as to Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 33--breaking and stealing--which carries a maximum penalty of ten years.
After a hearing, Judge Harris refused to modify the sentence and Wilson noted a timely appeal.
The case came here and was briefed and argued by appellant and the State on the premise or assumption that there now exists the same right of appeal from a refusal to correct a sentence, which we held, in Roberts v. Warden, 206 Md. 246, 111 A.2d 597, existed before the enactment of the Post Conviction Procedure Act. That Act specifically provides in Code (1961 Supp.), Art. 27, Sec. 645A(b), that there no longer is an appeal to this Court 'in habeas corpus or coram nobis cases, or from other common law or statutory remedies which have heretofore been available * * *.' Maryland Rule 744 a has 'the force of Law, until rescinded, changed, or modified' by this Court or the Legislature under the express terms of Art. IV, Sec. 18, of the Constitution of Maryland and is, therefore, to be considered a 'statutory remedy' within the meaning of the Post Conviction Procedure Act (Sec. 645A(b) of Art. 27 of the Code).
As Judge Henderson said in State v. D'Onofrio, 221 Md. 20, 29, 155 A.2d 643, 647, "The aim of this section [Sec. 645A of Art. 27] is to bring together and consolidate into one simple statute all the remedies, beyond those that are incident to the usual procedures of trial and review, which are at present available for challenging the validity of a sentence * * *." For this reason, Brady v. State, 222 Md. 442, 160 A.2d 912, held, on the State's motion to dismiss, that an overruled motion to strike out a judgment and sentence was not reviewable by this Court. Clearly the lower court's order of March 13, 1961, in this case was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Griffiths
...State, 305 Md. 108, 114-120, 501 A.2d 847, 850-853 (1985); Harris v. State, 241 Md. 596, 598, 217 A.2d 307, 308 (1966); Wilson v. State, 227 Md. 99, 175 A.2d 775 (1961). See also Telak v. State, 315 Md. 568, 575-576, 556 A.2d 225, 228-229 (1989). The majority now treats the Rule 4-345(a) pr......
-
Randall Book Corp. v. State
...under sentence of death or imprisonment shall be permitted or entertained.... Art. 27, § 645A(e). Citing Wilson v. State, 227 Md. 99, 101, 175 A.2d 775 (1961), the Valentine Court said that the motion to correct an illegal sentence authorized by Maryland Rule 4-345 (then Rule 774a) must be ......
-
Hoile v. State
...A.2d 847 (1985); Harris v. State, 241 Md. 596, 217 A.2d 307 (1966); Burley v. State, 239 Md. 342, 211 A.2d 714 (1965); Wilson v. State, 227 Md. 99, 175 A.2d 775 (1961); and Brady v. State, 222 Md. 442, 160 A.2d 912 (1960). Kanaras, however, did not overrule Costello, though discussing it ex......
-
Webster v. State
...`statutory' remedy. Statutes are enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland. The Maryland Rules are adopted by the Court of Appeals. As the Wilson court noted, the Maryland Constitution does provide that rules adopted by the Court `shall have the force of law until rescinded, changed or mo......