![]() ![]() Blumenthal is that if you conduct yourself in a well-mannered posture, that is to say, you refrain from getting into any disciplinary problems to speak of while you are incarcerated, the Court would be inclined to favorably consider motion at some point in time in the future. Although the terms of the plea agreement have been and are currently disputed, the record reflects the following colloquy between the trial judge and Strickland prior to acceptance of the guilty plea on March 3rd: The Court: What I indicated to Mr. 2- the trial judge, including discussions in the trial judge s chambers on March 2, 1998, which were not recorded, Strickland, pursuant to a plea agreement, entered a plea of guilty to first degree felony murder on March 3, 1998. At those times, there was no time limitation upon a court s authority under Rule 4-345(e)(1) to revise sentences. The five-year limitation upon a court s authority to revise a sentence under Rule 4-345(e)(1) was not in effect when the sentences in this case were imposed and when the motion under the Rule was filed. Upon a motion filed within 90 days after imposition of a sentence (A) in the District Court, if an appeal has not been perfected or has been dismissed, and (B) in a circuit court, whether or not an appeal has been filed, the court has revisory power over the sentence except that it may not revise the sentence after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed on the defendant and it may not increase the sentence. After discussions among defense counsel, the prosecuting attorney and 1 Maryland Rule 4-345(e)(1) provides as follows: (e) Modification Upon Motion. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charges of robbery with a deadly weapon and use of a handgun in commission of a felony, but it failed to reach a verdict on the murder charge. ![]() Sothoron, Jr., presiding, from January 5 through January 8, 1998. Strickland was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George s County, with Judge Richard H. The petitioner, Donovan Strickland, was charged with first degree murder, robbery with a deadly weapon, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. The dispositive issue in this criminal case is whether the circuit judge, who presided over the trial and sentenced the defendant, erred, by ruling on a motion for modification of sentence pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(e)(1), after the Administrative Judge had assigned the matter to a different circuit judge.1 I. _ Filed: Febru*Raker, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, she also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion. ![]() (Retired, Specially Assigned) Cathell, Dale R. * Raker Battaglia Greene Murphy Eldridge, John C. 90 September Term, 2007 _ DONOVAN STRICKLAND v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |