Opinion ID: 4415857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Johnson’s Other Contentions.

Text: Johnson queries further whether the evidence produced at his revocation hearing was insufficient to support a finding that he created a risk to public safety. Thus, because of this deficiency, the trial court erred by imposing a sentence above the presumptive limit for a first technical violation of probation. The State responds that this issue was not preserved properly for our review. To preserve an issue for appellate review generally, the complaining party must have raised the issue in the trial court. MD. RULE 8–131(a). If a party fails to make a contemporaneous objection in the trial court, the general rule is that he or she waives that issue on appeal. Nalls v. State, 437 Md. 674, 691, 89 A.3d 1126, 1136 (2014). Johnson did not object at any of the requisite times to preserve this issue. He failed to object when the trial judge discussed his probation violations, the original underlying crime, his history, the finding that his technical violations were “public safety violations,” or when the judge read his sentence. As such, the issue is waived. As discussed in Section III, Johnson has no right of direct appeal and must file an application for leave to appeal (which he did). His application for leave to appeal remains pending, where he may have this argument considered. We shall not usurp the Court of Special Appeals’s duty and, thus, abstain from deciding this question. Johnson’s final contention is that even if the evidence produced was sufficient to sentence him beyond the presumptive limits of incarceration, his sentence should be - 26 - vacated because the trial judge did not revoke expressly his probation and did not state on the record why he imposed on Johnson a ten-year sentence. Moreover, Johnson claims his right to due process was violated because he was not permitted to cross-examine the seventeen-year-old female that addressed the court during the sentencing phase. The State responds that Johnson’s claims on this revocation issue are not cognizable for our review. Even Johnson, in his brief, recognizes that “[r]eview of an order of a circuit revoking probation shall be brought by application for leave to appeal.” MD. CODE, CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 12-302(g). Consistent with our disposition of the flagship questions presented by Johnson and Conaway, this issue is not before us properly and not cognizable for our review. Johnson may pursue this challenge through his pending application for leave to appeal. 11 JUNE 2018 ORDER OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS DIRECTING CONAWAY TO PROCEED BY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER. 18 NOVEMBER 2018 ORDER OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS DISMISSING JOHNSON’S DIRECT APPEAL AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER. - 27 -