Chase v. State

1

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER CHASE v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1066-2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ^[*]

April 13, 2023

Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. C-13-CR-20-000595

Wells C.J., Berger, Beachley, JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Beachley, J.

On May 25, 2021, Benjamin Alexander Chase, appellant, pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Howard County to first-degree assault following a physical altercation with a fellow inmate at the correctional facility where they were incarcerated. The court accepted his plea and sentenced Chase to a ten-year term of incarceration, to run "concurrent with any other outstanding or unserved sentence." The State subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence wherein it asserted that Maryland Code (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol.), § 3-210 of the Criminal Law Article ("CR") required the court to impose a consecutive sentence. The court granted the State's motion and resentenced Chase to a two-year consecutive term of incarceration.

In this pro se appeal, Chase presents a single issue for our review, which we have rephrased as follows:

Did the court err by granting the State's motion to correct an illegal sentence and resentencing him to a two-year consecutive term of incarceration?

We answer this question in the affirmative and will therefore vacate Chase's sentence and remand to reinstate the previously-imposed concurrent sentence.

BACKGROUND

On October 20, 2020, while serving a 25-year sentence at the Patuxent Institution, Chase stabbed James DeShields, a fellow inmate, in the neck with a pen. A grand jury indicted Chase on December 9, 2020, charging him with attempted first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and openly carrying a weapon with the intent to injure.

At a plea hearing held on May 25, 2021, the State advised the court that, in exchange for Chase pleading guilty to first-degree assault, it would recommend a ten-year term of incarceration, to be served consecutive to the 25-year sentence he was already serving. The defense, in turn, requested a ten-year concurrent sentence, with 169 days credit for time served. During voir dire of Chase, defense counsel explained the terms of his tentative guilty plea:

[W]e are choosing to plead guilty to one count of first degree assault. First degree assault carries a maximum penalty of 25 years, and in your case the elements of first-degree assault are causing any offensive contact with the intent to do serious bodily injury, okay. Now, we are agreeing to plead guilty to first [de]gree assault[.] [I]n exchange[,] the State is asking for a 10-year consecutive sentence, but the [c]ourt has indicated after knowing a little bit preliminary about the case, that the [c]ourt will give you a 10-year concurrent sentence. If the [c]ourt is not able to impose that concurrent sentence, the [c]ourt will allow us to withdraw the plea[.] [W]e won't be pleading guilty anymore, and we'll move ahead to our trial date. But the main plan here is we plead guilty to first degree assault for a 10- year concurrent sentence that starts on the date of your indictment[.] [Y]ou have 169 days credit already.

Thereafter, Chase pled guilty to first-degree assault. After the court found that Chase's guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, the State set forth the following factual predicate for the plea:

On October 20th, 2020 at approximately 0950 hours, inmate Benjamin Chase . . . would get into an argument with fellow inmate James DeShields in . . . the B-wing of the Patuxent Institution regarding use of a microwave. [Chase] would go to an area where bunks were located and retrieve an item and return to the location of where Mr. DeShields was and strike Mr. DeShields in the neck, causing Mr. DeShields to fall to the ground. [Chase] would then walk away from the scene and dispose of the item before it could be recovered. A correctional officer . . . observed the incident which was also recorded on video surveillance. The weapon was not located, but Mr. DeShields would sustain a puncture wound to the left side of his neck that required several sutures to close. Following the incident, [Chase] would admit to striking Mr. DeShields. Would indicate that he used a pen to commit the incident, but no pen was recovered. All events would occur in Howard County[.]

In response, Chase, through counsel, accepted the State's factual proffer with "no additions, corrections, or modification[s]." The court found the proffered facts sufficient to support a first-degree assault conviction. Accordingly, it accepted Chase's guilty plea and sentenced him to a ten-year concurrent term of confinement, with 169 days credit for time served. The State then nolle prossed the remaining charges.

On July 22, 2021, the State filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(a). In that motion, the State asserted:

[Chase] was sentenced to ten (10) years of active incarceration as a flat sentence to run concurrent to any sentence currently being served.

Pursuant to Criminal Law Article 3-210(b):

A sentence imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any sentence that the inmate was serving at the time of the crime or that had been imposed but was not yet being served at the time of sentencing.

Consequently, the [c]ourt's sentence is illegal as it is not consecutive to any sentence being served.

(Paragraph numbering omitted). Defense counsel filed a "Response to State's Motion" that same day, wherein he rejoined:

Although Mr. Chase pled guilty to an assault crime, the State remained required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the factual predicate for the sentencing enhancement . . . in its factual proffer to the [c]ourt; and, the [c]ourt was required to find that factual predicate proved beyond a reasonable doubt....

The [c]ourt accepted the plea; however, it did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chase assaulted "an inmate" or "employee" of the [Division of Correction].

Accordingly, Section 3-210(b) does not apply to Mr. Chase's sentence, rendering the sentence legal.

(Paragraph numbering omitted).

The court held a hearing on the State's motion on September 10, 2021. At that hearing, the State reiterated its assertion that Chase's sentence was illegal under CR § 3-210(b), arguing that its factual proffer at the plea hearing had established that Chase "was an inmate at the time this plea was entered." Defense counsel, in turn, maintained that the sentence was legal "because there was no finding beyond a reasonable doubt that would trigger the requirement that this be a consecutive sentence that Mr. Chase assaulted either an inmate or employee as the statute requires." Alternatively, the defense requested that the court depart below the sentencing guidelines so that the total term of Chase's incarceration would approximate the amount of time he would have served under his original sentence.

The court granted the State's motion and resentenced Chase to two years' incarceration "to run . . . consecutive with sentence currently serving." Ruling from the bench, the court stated:

I do agree with the State that it was an illegal sentence. That I am required to sentence consecutively. But I also take into account that Mr. Chase had certain expectation[s] when he entered the plea. And although I was free to sentence him to 10 years consecutive, that was not the [c]ourt's intention that he serve an additional 10 years in addition to the sentence he's serving. And because [c]ounsel and the [c]ourt disregarded that statute, I don't think that Mr. Chase should be penalized beyond that which I felt was appropriate at the time of the sentencing.

So[,] I think the guidelines fairies will be visiting me on this one, but they're only guidelines. But it seems to comply with the spirit, I would be comfortable with the two year consecutive[.]

We will include additional facts as necessary to our resolution of the question presented.

DISCUSSION

Chase's Contentions

In scattershot fashion, Chase raises an array of constitutional challenges to the court's decisions to grant the State's motion and to resentence him to a two-year consecutive term of incarceration. He claims that the court violated his rights to due process and equal protection, as well as the prohibitions against double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment. Alternatively, Chase contends that by imposing an increased sentence, the court violated Maryland Code (1973, 2020 Repl. Vol.), § 12-702 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP").^[1] Standard of Review

Maryland Rule 4-345 governs a sentencing court's revisory power and provides, in pertinent part: "The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time." Md. Rule 4-345(a). "[I]t is well established that a court may correct an illegal sentence on its own initiative and at any time, even upon appeal." Mateen v. Saar, 376 Md. 385, 405 (2003); see also Garner v. State, 442 Md. 226 250-51 (2015) ("The power of the court to correct an illegal sentence exists on appeal even where the illegality of the sentence was not raised in the trial court."); State v. Griffiths, 338 Md. 485, 496 (1995) ("[W]e have in the past ex mero motu directed the trial court to correct an illegal sentence upon remand.").

"An illegal sentence, for purposes of Rule 4-345(a), is one in which the illegality 'inheres in the sentence itself[.]'" Colvin v. State, 450 Md. 718 725 (2016) (quoting Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460, 466 (2007)). In other words, the Rule permits the correction of "'inherently illegal' sentences, not sentences resulting from 'procedural error[s].'" State v. Bustillo, 480 Md. 650, 665 (2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Bailey v. State, 464 Md. 685, 696 (2019)). Under Rule 4-345(a), a sentence is "inherently...