Opinion ID: 2357354
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Irregularity

Text: The State argues that, although the April 2005 sentence is not illegal, the proceeding was marred by an irregularity. The State correctly points out that the court has revisory power over a sentence in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. Maryland Rule 4-345(b). The State's argument, however, suffers from a fundamental flaw. At least on the facts in the present case, [26] a court may not increase a sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(b). In the context of judgments, it is well settled that an `irregularity' is `the doing or not doing of that, in the conduct of a suit at law, which, conformable to the practice of the court, ought or ought not to be done.' Gantt v. State, 99 Md.App. 100, 104, 635 A.2d 97, 99 (1994) (quoting Autobahn Motors, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 321 Md. 558, 562, 583 A.2d 731, 733 (1991)). [I]rregularity, in the contemplation of the Rule, usually means irregularity of process or procedure . . . and not an error, which in legal parlance, generally connotes a departure from truth or accuracy of which a defendant had notice and could have challenged. Autobahn Motors, 321 Md. 558, 562-63, 583 A.2d 731, 733 (citing Weitz v. MacKenzie, 273 Md. 628, 631, 331 A.2d 291, 293 (1975)). We assume, for the sake of argument, that the failure of the State to notify Palmer (as found by the trial judge) and the failure of the trial court to inquire into notification in the first instance, constitutes an irregularity within the meaning of Rule 4-345(b). As we noted earlier, [t]o interpret rules of procedure, we use the same canons and principles of construction used to interpret statutes. Strazzella, 331 Md. at 274, 627 A.2d at 1057. We thus look to the plain meaning of the language employed in these rules and construe that language without forced or subtle interpretations designed to limit or extend its scope. Lee, 332 Md. at 658-59, 632 A.2d at 1185. Generally, it is only when the words of the rule are ambiguous that we must look toward other sources to glean the intent of the rule. In re Victor B., 336 Md. 85, 94, 646 A.2d 1012, 1016 (1994). Maryland Rule 4-345(b) states that [t]he court has revisory power over a sentence in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. While the statement of the Rule seems simple enough, there is ambiguity in determining the scope of the court's revisory power under this subsection. Maryland Rule 4-345(a), which permits a court to increase a sentence to correct an illegal sentence, does not use the term revisory power, utilizing instead the term correct. By contrast, Maryland Rule 4-345(e) uses the term revisory power, but lists the prohibition on increasing a sentence as an exception to that revisory power. Thus, we turn to the legislative history of the Rule to determine the remedial scope of the revisory power in Maryland Rule 4-345(b). Prior to 11 May 2004, Maryland Rule 4-345(b) stated: 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 (1) in the District Court, if an appeal has not been perfected, and (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, or as provided in section (e) [desertion and nonsupport cases] of this Rule. 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. For the purposes relevant to our discussion here, current 4-345(b) and 4-345(e) were combined into one section. The Rule prior to 11 May 2004 made clear that a trial court could not increase a defendant's sentence unless the increase was to correct a mistake in the announcement of sentence before the defendant exited the courtroom. The Rules Committee Letter Report [27] and Reporter's Note accompanying the proposed rule change discussed the rationale of several of the proposed changes to Maryland Rule 4-345. Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Letter Report, Rule 4-345, 17 February 2004 available at http://www. courts.state.md.us/rules/reports/ courtletter-revisorypower.pdf. The removal of the prohibition of a court increasing a sentence was not among the changes discussed. Id. The Reporter's Note concluded, Other changes . . . are stylistic only. Id. Thus, it is clear that the penultimate drafters of the new Rule did not intend to eliminate the prohibition on increasing a sentence because of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. The distinction between Maryland Rule 4-345(a), under which a court may increase a sentence, and (b), under which a court may not, is highlighted by Ridgeway v. State, 369 Md. 165, 797 A.2d 1287 (2002), a case decided before the 2004 amendments to Maryland Rule 4-345. The Court of Appeals framed the issue in Ridgeway as [t]he dispute in this case, and the decisional issue before this Court, is whether the trial judge's correction of the petitioner's sentence was pursuant to subsection (a) or [then] subsection (b) of Rule 4-345. Ridgeway, 369 Md. at 170, 797 A.2d at 1289. The Court noted that the distinction between the two subsections was important because an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time, while correcting a mistake in a sentencing order that results in an increased sentence may only occur before the defendant leaves the courtroom following the sentencing proceedings. Ridgeway, 369 Md. at 170, 797 A.2d at 1290 (internal quotation omitted). Our conclusion is also supported by Judge Wilner's analysis of the Rule in his concurrence, in Lopez-Sanchez. Judge Wilner noted that [e]xcept when sentence review is sought by the defendant under [Criminal Procedure Article] §§ 8-101 through 8-109, or an appeal is taken by the State under [Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article] § 12-302 to correct the failure of a court to impose a sentence mandated by law, the sentence may not be increased after it is imposed. The revisory power of the court extends only to modifications that are clarifying in nature or that do not adversely affect the defendant. (Emphasis added). Lopez-Sanchez, 388 Md. at 248, 879 A.2d at 715 (Wilner, J., concurring).