Court Opinion

ID: 9774242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:12:34.703585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:04.252825
License: Public Domain

MURPHY, J.,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that I filed in Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568, 7 A.3d 557 (2010), I dissent from the holding that “Petitioner is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement.” A defendant is entitled to specific performance only when there has been a “meeting of the minds” between the defendant and the trial court. If there is a misunderstanding between the defendant and the trial court with respect to the maximum sentence that can be imposed, the defendant’s guilty plea does not conform to the requirements of Md. Rule 4-242(c), and the defendant is therefore entitled to the relief provided for in Md. Rule 4r-243(c)(4). The defendant, however, is not entitled to receive a sentence that the sentencing judge never agreed to impose.