Court Opinion

ID: 9761631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:48:20.16421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:25.136836
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion by
WILNER, J.,
in which HARRELL, J., joins.
I join in the Court’s opinion but write separately only to express my view that the Court of Special Appeals got it right *85in State v. Cardinell, 90 Md.App. 453, 601 A.2d 1123 (1992) in defining the word “Code” in § 12-302(c)(2) to include the Maryland Rules, thereby authorizing a State appeal when a circuit court exceeds the limitation on its revisory authority under Rule 4-345. The Court reserves on that question, see footnote 12 of the majority opinion, but, for the guidance of the trial courts, I would not leave it hanging. The issue is an important one. It is before us in this case, and we should address it. Trial judges know that, absent a showing of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, they have no authority under Rule 4-345 to modify a lawful sentence except upon a motion filed within ninety days following imposition of the sentence. What must be made clear is, that, if they do make such a modification, in contravention of that rule, as was done both here and in Cardinell, the State may, and likely will, appeal, and that, upon such an appeal, absent some circumstance that I cannot now envision, the modification will be vacated.
Judge HARRELL has authorized me to state that he joins in this concurrence.