Opinion ID: 2357354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Granting of the Motion to Vacate Reconsideration of Sentence is an Appealable Judgment

Text: The Court of Special Appeals dismissed Hoile's appeal as premature, holding that the vacation of Hoile's altered sentence of time served and five years probation was not an appealable final judgment. It is a long-standing principle of our appellate jurisprudence that generally, an appeal in a criminal case is premature until after final judgment. Dail v. Price, 184 Md. 140, 143, 40 A.2d 334, 336 (1944); Maryland Code (1977, 2006 Repl.Vol.), Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article § 12-301. Because of the difficulty in determining whether an issue before an appellate court arises from a final judgment, this Court has formulated a definition: The judgment must be so final as to determine and conclude rights involved, or deny the appellant means of further prosecuting or defending his rights and interests in the subject matter of the proceeding. . . . Sigma Reproductive Health Ctr. v. State, 297 Md. 660, 665, 467 A.2d 483, 485 (1983) (internal quotation omitted). In a basic sense, a final judgment consists of a verdict [in a criminal case] and either the pronouncement of sentence or the suspension of its imposition or execution. Lewis v. State, 289 Md. 1, 4, 421 A.2d 974 (1980). Usually, a criminal case is complete and disposed of when sentence has been pronounced and, generally, sentence is the punishment to be inflicted on the convicted person in the form of imprisonment or fine or both. Langworthy v. State, 284 Md. 588, 596-97, 399 A.2d 578, 583 (1979) (footnote and citation omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Treece v. State, 313 Md. 665, 547 A.2d 1054 (1988). When sentence is pronounced or imposed, there is a final judgment for purposes of appeal. State v. Sayre, 314 Md. 559, 565, 552 A.2d 553, 556 (1989), superceded by Rule change on other grounds as stated in Greco v. State, 347 Md. 423, 433 n. 4, 701 A.2d 419, 423 n. 4 (1997). The State contends that because a new sentence has not yet been imposed, there is no final judgment and no appealable order. The State, in this argument, takes a narrow view of what constitutes a sentence imposed by a court. The State urges that the original sentence of 15 years incarceration was not reimposed on Hoile, rather, it simply was resurrected, revived, sprung back, or reverted by virtue of the court's vacation of the altered sentence of time served and five years' probation. The State's argument ignores the procedure required to revive Hoile's original sentence and our caselaw which takes a broader view of what constitutes the imposition of sentence. In McDonald v. State, 314 Md. 271, 550 A.2d 696 (1988), we rejected the argument that an original sentence was revived when reimposed on a defendant. McDonald was convicted of solicitation and was sentenced to a six-month suspended sentence with supervised probation for one year. Later, the trial court found that McDonald violated her probation and reimposed the six-month sentence. The trial court denied McDonald's Rule 4-345 motion for reconsideration of sentence because more than 90 days elapsed since the original imposition of sentence. We held that the reinstating of a suspended sentence following the parole violation constituted an imposition of sentence. We noted that [w]hether the hearing judge reimposes the original sentence or imposes a new sentence, the effect under Rule 4-345[ ] remains the same. . . . McDonald, 314 Md. at 285, 550 A.2d at 702. We expressly adopted the reasoning of the Court of Special Appeals in Coley v. State, 74 Md.App. 151, 156, 536 A.2d 1166, 1169 (1988), where the intermediate appellate court stated that if an order revoking a defendant's probation returns the hearing judge to the original sentencing status, then any sentence so imposed must have the effect of an original sentence. The Court of Appeals concluded that [t]he 90-day period runs from the time any sentence is imposed or reimposed upon revocation of probation. . . . McDonald, 314 Md. at 285, 550 A.2d at 702. In Greco, 347 Md. 423, 701 A.2d 419, we addressed whether a reduction in sentence as a result of a defendant's motion for reconsideration was an imposition of sentence. Greco was convicted in 1984 of first degree murder and first degree rape. Greco, 347 Md. at 426, 701 A.2d at 420. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment. Id. The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of sentence, which was held sub curia by the trial court until 1992. Id. In 1992, the trial court modified Greco's sentence to concurrent life terms of imprisonment. Id. Shortly thereafter, Greco filed another motion for reconsideration of sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345. Id. The trial court ruled that it was divested of jurisdiction to hear Greco's new motion for reconsideration of sentence because more than 90 days had passed since the original imposition of sentence in 1984. Id. The Court of Appeals held that, by reducing Greco's sentence in 1992, the trial court had imposed a new sentence, thus resetting the 90-day clock. Greco, 347 Md. at 432 701 A.2d at 423. Therefore, we also held that Greco was entitled to be heard on his new motion for reconsideration of sentence. Id. Greco stands for the proposition that the granting of a motion for modification of sentence constitutes the imposition of a new sentence. Accord State v. Green, 367 Md. 61, 83-84, 785 A.2d 1275, 1288 (2001) ([O]ur cases make clear that when a trial court grants a motion to revise a criminal sentence, it resurrects the penalty portion of a judgment, thus, the new sentence represents the actual disposition of the case and the modified sentence becomes the appealable order.). The State offers no persuasive argument as to why the vacation of the grant of an identical motion does not also constitute an imposition of a new sentence. See Green, 367 Md. at 83-84, 785 A.2d at 1288 (rejecting an argument described as exceedingly technical and holding that when a trial court revises sentence the new sentence represents the actual disposition of the case and the modified sentence becomes the appealable order); Webster, 359 Md. at 477, 754 A.2d at 1010 (finding an appealable judgment where the collateral motion . . . was granted, and resulted in the imposition of a new sentence). The State's reasoning, were it to be adopted, could lead to potentially anomalous results. If the State had opposed Hoile's initially successful motion for reconsideration of sentence on the grounds that it was a violation of either the Maryland Code or the Maryland Rules, the State clearly would have the right to appeal. Maryland Code (1974, 2006 Repl. Vol.), Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, § 12-302(c)(2); Green, 367 Md. at 84, 785 A.2d at 1288 (2001); Webster, 359 Md. at 477, 754 A.2d at 1010. The State, instead, offered no opposition to Hoile's motion and allowed its time for appeal from the grant thereof to expire. The State then supported Palmer's motion to vacate reconsideration of sentence after the time expired for the State's appeal from the decision on the motion. See State v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269, 273, 900 A.2d 765, 768 (2006) (In other words, a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not an alternative method of obtaining belated appellate review of the proceedings that led to the imposition of judgment and sentence in a criminal case.). In essence, the State joined in a motion seeking to reverse a decision of the Circuit Court for which the State's time to appeal had expired. Hoile also points out that if the Circuit Court were to deny his resurrected pending motion for modification of sentence, he would have no opportunity to appeal. The State's brief is conspicuously silent in response to this argument. There is much caselaw holding that the denial of a motion to modify a sentence, unless tainted by illegality, fraud, or duress, is not appealable. See, e.g., Costello v. State, 237 Md. 464, 469-70, 206 A.2d 812, 815 (1965) (holding that where the defendant alleged a violation of the constitutional right to due process of law, the defendant would be permitted to appeal a denial of a motion to modify sentence as an exception to the general principle); State v. Rodriguez, 125 Md.App. 428, 442, 725 A.2d 635, 642 (1999) (As a general rule, `[a] motion to modify or reduce a sentence is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is not appealable.' (quoting State v. Strickland, 42 Md.App. 357, 359, 400 A.2d 451, 452 (1979))). This clear principle, however, might be seen as called into question recently by dicta [22] in Fuller v. State, 397 Md. 372, 918 A.2d 453 (2007) ( Fuller II ). For the purpose of clarity, we explain that a denial of Hoile's pending motion for modification of sentence would have been unappealable. [23] The proper perspective from which to analyze Fuller II begins with the Court of Special Appeals's opinion in that case, Fuller v. State, 169 Md.App. 303, 900 A.2d 311 (2006) (Fuller I) . The Court of Special Appeals in Fuller I surveyed prior reported cases and noted its synthesized conclusion that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the ruling at issue is entirely consistent with the well settled rule (never modified by the General Assembly) that, unless the circuit court erroneously concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion for modification, no direct appeal lies from the circuit court's denial of a motion for modification or reduction of a sentence that the defendant concedes to be a legal sentence. Fuller I, 169 Md.App. at 309-310, 900 A.2d at 315 (footnotes omitted). We affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, but our reasoning on this issue appeared to differ. In support of its assertion that no appeal lies from the refusal to modify a legal sentence, except where it declines to exercise jurisdiction, the Court of Special Appeals relied on Costello. Fuller I, 169 Md.App. at 310 n. 6, 900 A.2d at 315 n. 6. We, however, disagreed with that reliance, noting that [w]e disagree with the State's rationale relying upon Costello . . . that a decision left to the discretion of the trial court judge is not reviewable on appeal, because that justification was obviated in Merritt [v. State], 367 Md. 17, 785 A.2d 756, in which we examined the appealability of the denial of a motion for a new trial. Fuller II, 397 Md. at 388, 918 A.2d at 462. Then, quoting contrasting dicta in Greco, 347 Md. at 423, 701 A.2d at 419, the Court in Fuller II stated that `[i]f the motion is denied, the defendant is finished -he or she may not file another motion for reconsideration.' Fuller II, 397 Md. at 389, 918 A.2d at 463 (quoting Greco, 347 Md. at 423, 701 A.2d at 419). This undeveloped dicta could be read to call into question the clearly articulated earlier rule prohibiting appeal of a discretionary denial of a timely motion for modification of sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(e) and its predecessors. The language in Fuller II, as construed here, should not be read as retreating from the Court's earlier expressed views on this point. In discussing the appealability of the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(a), Judge Eldridge fairly described earlier Maryland jurisprudence on the issue as a plethora of inconsistent opinions, a saga, and zigzagging. State v. Kanaras, 357 Md. 170, 180, 742 A.2d 508, 514 (1999). Kanaras, in overruling at least five prior reported cases and affirming several others, brought needed clarity by holding that the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is appealable. Kanaras is just as notable for what it did not overrule as what it did. Kanaras, expressly overruled Valentine v. State, 305 Md. 108, 501 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 extensively. The Court's opinion in Fuller II correctly recognized Kanaras as reconciling Costello while overruling Wilson, the case upon which Costello relies largely. Fuller II, 397 Md. at 384, 918 A.2d at 460. The holding of Costello has not been challenged, either by Fuller, Kanaras, or any other case. Thus, the distinction between motions to correct a sentence based upon an error of law and motions to reconsider sentence that are entirely committed to a court's discretion remains good law. Therefore, a denial of Hoile's pending motion for modification of sentence would not be appealable. [24] Finally, the State's argument fails as a practical matter. As a result of the 5 April 2005 hearing, Hoile was under a sentence of five years of probation. Following the 10 February 2006 hearing, the Circuit Court signed a new commitment order, committing Hoile to the Division of Correction for the remainder of a 15 year period of incarceration. The filing of a new commitment order is not a mere formality. In Sayre, 314 Md. at 565, 552 A.2d at 556, superceded by Rule change on other grounds as stated in Greco, 347 Md. at 433 n. 4, 701 A.2d at 423 n. 4, the question considered was when was a sentence deemed to be imposed on a defendant following a conviction. The Court of Appeals held that the sentence was imposed when it was announced from the bench and the trial court indicates that the particular case before it is terminated, even if the trial judge suffered a slip of the tongue and announced the wrong sentence. Sayre, 314 Md. at 565, 552 A.2d at 556. No commitment order or transfer of the defendant to the executive branch was necessary for the sentence to be deemed imposed. The new commitment order in the present case provides far greater indicia of finality than that of an oral indication from the bench that the proceedings before the court are closed. In fact, the dissent in Sayre argued that the Court should have held that a sentence was imposed when the commitment order was filed. See Sayre, 314 Md. at 568, 552 A.2d at 557 (Rodowsky, J., dissenting) (`The oral utterance is an act of judgment, but it is not an entirely unalterable one. Other events, as for example entry of the order of commitment, are required to give it absolute finality.' (quoting Rowley v. Welch, 114 F.2d 499, 503 (D.C.Cir.1940))). The Majority in Sayre rejected that argument, holding instead that finality attached to the judgment prior to the filing of a new commitment order. The new order in the present case altered the sentence that Hoile was then serving. See Webster, 359 Md. at 477, 754 A.2d at 1010 (agreeing with the State in that case that the sentence modification at issue was an appealable judgment because the action of the trial court served to alter the sentence previously imposed upon the petitioner); Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 351, 893 A.2d 1018, 1054 (2006) (In the present case, the trial court initially imposed the sentence for extortion to begin on 24 December 2002 and then purported in subsequent papers to change it to consecutive with the death sentence, which effected an increase (albeit potentially a metaphysical one) in the sentence. This was not permitted.). The new sentence represents a sentence imposed on Hoile, and as such, is appealable. We also conclude that the new sentence imposed in February 2006 amounted to an increase in sentence over the sentence imposed in April 2005. This requires little explanation. Prior to 10 February 2006, Hoile was sentenced to probation. Currently, Hoile stands sentenced to the remainder of 15 years in prison.