Opinion ID: 2357354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Merits of the Present Appeal

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 Langworthy v. State, 284 Md. 588, 596-97, 399 A.2d 578, 583 (1979) (footnote and citation omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Treece v. State, 313 Md. 665, 547 A.2d 1054 (1988).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 State v. Sayre, 314 Md. 559, 565, 552 A.2d 553, 556 (1989), superceded by Rule change on other grounds as stated in Greco v. State, 347 Md. 423, 433 n. 4, 701 A.2d 419, 423 n. 4 (1997).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.
Having determined that the 10 February 2006 hearing resulted in an increased sentence imposed on Hoile, we must determine whether the increase in that sentence was legal. Hoile presents three arguments for why it was not. First, Hoile contends that the factual findings made by the Circuit Court are insufficient to find that the sentence imposed at the April 2005 hearing violated Maryland Rule 4-345(e) and (f) and thus, was not an illegal sentence. Hoile, curiously, first argues that the facts as found by the Circuit Court are not sufficient to hold that the April 2005 proceeding violated Rule 4-345(e) and (f). Because we do not address the argument here, it is not necessary to recount it in detail. Essentially, Hoile contends that because the Circuit Court failed to make a specific finding that the State failed to take adequate steps to notify Palmer of the proceeding, the Circuit Court could not deem the April 2005 sentence illegal. If we were to address this argument and agree with Hoile, we likely would remand the case to the Circuit Court for such a factual determination. Instead, we hold that the Circuit Court illegally increased Hoile's sentence by granting the motion to vacate sentence, and shall reverse ultimately the Circuit Court. Second, Hoile contends that even if the Circuit Court failed to comply with Maryland Rule 4-345(e) and (f), the failure to notify the victim does not render the sentence of five years probation illegal. Finally, he contends in his reply brief that a court may not increase a defendant's sentence unless the original sentence is illegal. Here, the Victim and the State part ways with their responsive arguments. The State concedes that the modified sentence was not `illegal'. . . . Instead, the State contends that the failure to notify the Victim of the proceedings constitutes an irregularity, over which the Circuit Court retains revisory power under Maryland Rule 4-345(b). By contrast, Ms. Palmer maintains that the sentence imposed at the April 2005 hearing was illegal and may be corrected by the Circuit Court pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(a).
Maryland Rule 4-345(a) states that a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. The correction of an illegal sentence may result in an increase over the erroneous sentence previously imposed on the defendant. State v. Griswold, 374 Md. 184, 821 A.2d 430 (2003) (holding that the trial court illegally reduced convictions on motion for reconsideration and reinstating convictions which effectively increased sentence); State v. Hannah, 307 Md. 390, 403, 514 A.2d 16, 22 (1986) (vacating, on the State's appeal, the sentence of probation before judgment and ordering trial court to impose mandatory minimum of five years in prison); State ex rel. Sonner v. Shearin, 272 Md. 502, 526, 325 A.2d 573, 586 (1974) (Upon the remand the trial judge shall delete the improper suspension of sentence so that the handgun violation will be for the mandatory term of five years.); Mateen v. Galley, 146 Md.App. 623, 649, 807 A.2d 708, 723 (2002) (holding that an illegal sentence may be corrected by the imposition of a legal sentence, even though the corrected sentence is longer than the original illegal sentence), reversed on other grounds, Mateen v. Saar, 376 Md. 385, 829 A.2d 1007 (2003). An illegal sentence is a sentence not permitted by law. Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422, 427, 488 A.2d 949, 951 (1985). An illegal sentence properly is corrected only where there is some illegality in the sentence itself or where no sentence should have been imposed. Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248, 278, 855 A.2d 291, 309 (2004). Language in Evans stating that a sentence is illegal where no sentence should have been imposed is inapplicable to the context of the present case. The language in Evans does not make a sentence illegal merely because a required procedure was not followed prior to the court imposing the sentence. Evans cites three cases for the premise that a sentence is illegal if it is imposed where no sentence should have been imposed. In all three cases, no sentence should have been imposed at any proceeding in the case. See Ridgeway v. State, 369 Md. 165, 171, 797 A.2d 1287, 1290 (2002) (no sentence should have been imposed on the defendant for certain assault charges because the defendant was acquitted of those charges); Holmes v. State, 362 Md. 190, 195-96, 763 A.2d 737, 740 (2000) (sentence of probation with home detention as a condition of probation was illegal because the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose such a condition); Moosavi v. State, 355 Md. 651, 662, 736 A.2d 285, 291 (1999) (sentence was illegal because the defendant was convicted under an inapplicable statute). By contrast, the State and Palmer do not contend that the Circuit Court would be without authority to impose a sentence of probation at a hearing which fully complied with the requirements of Maryland Rule 4-345(e) and (f). Instead, they argue that the particular proceeding at which the sentence of probation was imposed on Hoile was deficient. Thus, the rule as stated in Evans is of no help to the State or Palmer. A sentence is not illegal where the illegality did not inhere in [the defendant's] sentence. Id. (quoting Kanaras, 357 Md. at 185, 742 A.2d at 517). The notion of an `illegal sentence' within the contemplation of the Walczak decision deals with substantive law, not procedural law. It has obvious reference to a sentence which is beyond the statutorily granted power of the judge to impose. It does not remotely suggest that a sentence, proper on its face, becomes an `illegal sentence' because of some arguable procedural flaw in the sentencing procedure. Wilkins, 393 Md. at 273, 900 A.2d at 768 (quoting Corcoran v. State, 67 Md.App. 252, 255 507 A.2d 200, 202 (1986)). Although there are significant differences between the current Maryland rule [4-345] and its federal counterpart [35(b)], Greco, 347 Md. at 434, 701 A.2d at 424, we have found federal precedent helpful in applying some aspects of the rule. In Wilkins, 393 Md. at 275, 900 A.2d at 769, and Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 321-22, 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989), we discussed approvingly the Supreme Court's decision in Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962), in our analysis of what constitutes an illegal sentence. In Hill, the trial judge did not afford the defendant an opportunity to allocute prior to sentencing, in violation of the Federal Rules. On a later appeal, the defendant argued that the sentence imposed by the trial court was an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating: But, as the Rule's language and history make clear, the narrow function of Rule 35 is to permit correction at any time of an illegal sentence, not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence. The sentence in this case was not illegal. The punishment meted out was not in excess of that prescribed by the relevant statutes, multiple terms were not imposed for the same offense, nor were the terms of the sentence itself legally or constitutionally invalid in any other respect. Hill, 368 U.S. 424, 430, 82 S.Ct. 468, 472, 7 L.Ed.2d 417. As noted above, Hill has been discussed with approval in several reported Maryland appellate decisions. Although both are given rights at a sentencing proceeding, the law currently recognizes that a criminal defendant has a greater cognizable interest in the sentencing proceeding than does the victim of the crime. [25] If it is not an illegal sentence where the criminal defendant is sentenced and not afforded the required opportunity to speak on his own behalf, it is less able to be maintained that an illegal sentence results where the victim is denied the opportunity to speak. Palmer and the State do not allege that the sentence of probation imposed at the April 2005 hearing exceeded any statutorily prescribed limits or violated any substantive criminal law. The sentence is not illegal on its face, and accordingly, the sentence is not illegal.
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).
Palmer argues that, were our judgment to direct reversal of the Circuit Court, the effect would be to deny her any possible remedy for a clear violation of her right to be notified of, and be heard at, the sentencing proceeding. She largely is correct. Many victims' rights seem effective only when exercised prior to sentencing and entering of a final judgment against or in favor of the defendant. Such a limitation is implied in Article 47's express prohibition on a court permitting a victim to stay a criminal justice proceeding. See also § 11-103(c). If a victim is not authorized to take an action to stay the entering of a judgment in a criminal case, the victim similarly is powerless to have that judgment reopened or vacated. It would be somewhat anomalous if the victim had the power to have a judgment vacated (essentially, undone) where the victim did not have the power to stay the entering of that same judgment. In Lodowski v. State, 302 Md. 691, 747, 490 A.2d 1228, 1256-57 (1985), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 1078, 106 S.Ct. 1452, 89 L.Ed.2d 711 (1986), and again in Cianos, 338 Md. at 411-12, 659 A.2d at 294, we briefly discussed the legislative history of a proposal to permit a victim to seek invalidation of a defendant's sentence based on a violation of the victim's rights. Provisions invalidating the sentence clearly worried the legislators. A memorandum, evidently prepared by staff of the House Judiciary Committee, stated, `[t]he major practical problem of both bills . . . is the possibility of placing the defendant in jeopardy a second time during the sentencing hearing.' . . . The memorandum concluded that, `House Bill 70 would be acceptable, however, if [the] lines [invalidating the sentence] were deleted. The statute would have no teeth after such a deletion but it would provide the personal input toward which the statute is aimed.' Cianos, 338 Md. at 411-12, 659 A.2d at 294 (quoting Lodowski, 302 Md. at 747, 490 A.2d at 1256-57). The Legislature has addressed some of the limitations on victims' rights, such as expanding a victim's right to apply to appeal, following Lopez-Sanchez. The Legislature, however, in the 23 years since Lodowski and 13 years since Cianos, has not given much substance to the illusory nature of the enforcement of victims' rights. The General Assembly is presumed to be aware of this Court's interpretation of its enactments and, if such interpretation is not legislatively overturned, to have acquiesced in that interpretation. Williams v. State, 292 Md. 201, 210, 438 A.2d 1301, 1305 (1981). Although a victim now has more opportunity to participate in an appeal, there remains no effective tangible remedy for a victim to seek to un-do what already has been done in a criminal case. The rights, to seek invalidation of an otherwise legal sentence. The victims' rights provisions in Maryland law still lack adult teeth. Thus, the victim is left largely with extra-judicial remedies. Although the Legislature responded to the specific issue decided in Lopez-Sanchez, Judge Wilner's description of the lack of remedies afforded victims of crime who have been denied their statutory rights remains largely apt: Although disciplinary proceedings conceivably may be brought against a judge who wilfully violates clear statutory rights, there seems to be no efficient remedy for a victim . . . if a judge, whether in good or bad faith, denies the victim the rights the Legislature has conferred. Lopez-Sanchez v. State, 388 Md. 214, 231, 879 A.2d 695, 704 (2005) (Wilner, J., concurring). In the present case, there is absolutely no indication that the Circuit Court acted in bad faith. The Circuit Court, on hearing Palmer's motion to vacate, admitted the apparent oversight regarding notice and attempted to remedy the mistake, although the remedy selected was beyond the Circuit Court's reach. [28] Because Palmer's rights as a victim of crime were violated, we again shall fashion the only remedy of which we are legally capable. Palmer shall not be burdened with costs in this appeal, where her rights were violated through no fault of her own. [29] JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO VACATE THE SENTENCE OF THE REMAINDER OF FIFTEEN YEARS IMPOSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AND REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REINSTATE THE SENTENCE OF PROBATION IMPOSED ON 8 APRIL 2005 AND TO CONDUCT ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS DEEMED NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE THAT ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; COSTS TO BE PAID BY PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND.