Hamm v. State

CURTIS LEONARD HAMM v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 7

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

May 7, 2020

Circuit Court for Baltimore County

Case Nos. 03-K-11-005762, 03-K-11-006089

UNREPORTED

Graeff, Nazarian, Alpert, Paul E. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Alpert, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

In 2012, appellant, Curtis Leonard Hamm, pleaded guilty, pursuant to a binding plea agreement, to separate charges of robbery and robbery with a dangerous weapon. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County thereafter sentenced him to consecutive terms of ten years' imprisonment, with all but one year suspended, to be followed by three years' probation. Hamm subsequently violated his probation and, in 2014, received nearly eighteen years of his "backup" time. Then, in 2019, he filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that the original sentences, imposed in 2012, as well as the VOP sentences, imposed in 2014, violated the terms of a binding plea agreement. After that motion was denied, he noted this appeal.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the 2012 and 2014 sentences exceeded the maximum allowable sentence under the plea agreement and were therefore illegal. We vacate those sentences and remand for imposition of a lawful sentence.

BACKGROUND

On the night of September 20, 2011, Hamm, with several others, placed a telephone order to a Chinese carry out restaurant in Randallstown, in Baltimore County. When an employee of that restaurant attempted to deliver the order to a nearby apartment, Hamm and the others robbed her, taking the food, her keys and cell phone, and approximately $60 in cash. Police subsequently determined that a cell phone, associated with Hamm, had been used to place the order. Hamm ultimately was charged, in Case No. 03-K-11-005762, for his role in that incident.

A few weeks later, in the morning of October 6, 2011, Hamm, having been released on bail following his arrest for the September 20th robbery, teamed up with several othersto assault and rob at knifepoint a fifteen-year-old boy at a school playground in Randallstown.¹ The victim notified police and gave a description of the assailants. Shortly thereafter, police apprehended Hamm and one of the others, and the victim identified Hamm in an ensuing show-up identification. Hamm was found to be in possession of the victim's property, including his shoes, jacket, hat, cell phone, and identification card. Hamm ultimately was charged, in Case No. 03-K-11-006089, for his role in that incident.

On January 23, 2012, a hearing was held in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County so that Hamm could plead guilty in both cases pursuant to a plea agreement. The following colloquy ensued:

STATE: Your Honor, there have been plea negotiations in this case. The Defendant is tendering a guilty plea to one count in each case. Your Honor, as to the case ending in 5762, it is a guilty plea to the first count, which is robbery. Upon a finding of guilt, the State will nolle pross the remaining counts in that case. As to the case ending in 6089, there would be a guilty plea to count number one, charging the Defendant with robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon. Again, the State will nolle pross the remaining counts upon a finding of guilt. The State's recommendation is, same recommendation as to both cases, that is a ten year, suspend all but eighteen-month sentence to be served at the Detention Center, with a period of supervised probation upon release to be determined by the Court. Defense counsel is free to argue for whatever he deem[s] appropriate. It's also my understanding defense counsel is requesting a pre-sentence investigation. And finally, just so the Court is aware, as to the sentencing guidelines, as to the robbery count, it's a recommendation of [*3] (inaudible) to three years and then as to the robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon count, it is a recommendation of one to six years in terms of the sentencing guidelines.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Can I ask a quick question of the State?

THE COURT: Sure.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, that's my understanding of the plea agreement.

THE COURT: The State's recommendation is going to be a sentence totaling ten years, suspending all but a total of eighteen months?

STATE: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And free to argue for less and we would like to have a PSI done.

THE COURT: I will defer sentencing for that purpose and that's fine with me.

Defense counsel and the court then examined Hamm on the record to ensure that his guilty pleas were being entered knowingly and voluntarily. During that examination, the court declared its understanding of the terms of the plea agreement:

THE COURT: Okay. The commitment that I've made to, to [Defense Counsel] and you is that I will sentence you to a term of, at, at the maximum ten years in the Division of Corrections, suspending all of that but eighteen months to be served in the County Detention Center. [Defense Counsel] has a right to argue that I ought to impose a period of incarceration of less than that. But the, the cap that I'm placing on a period of incarceration is eighteen months. So, you understand all that?

MR. HAMM: Yes, sir.

The court ultimately found that Hamm's guilty pleas were being entered knowingly and voluntarily, and, after the State made its factual proffers, the court declared Hamm guilty of the offenses. The court then set a date for sentencing, and the hearing concluded.

Subsequently, the court sentenced Hamm, in Case No. 6089, to ten years' imprisonment, with all but one year suspended, and with credit for time served, the balance of the one year to be served in home detention. The court further sentenced Hamm, in Case No. 5762, to ten years' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence in Case No. 6089, all suspended, to be followed by three years' probation.

On September 16, 2012, while still on home detention, Hamm, armed with an axe handle, and another man, Womack, armed with a shotgun, assaulted two men.² That led, one year later, to Hamm's convictions, following a jury trial, of two counts each of assault in the first degree and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. On February 11, 2014, Hamm was sentenced in that case, No. 03-K-12-005848, to fifteen years' imprisonment, the first five without the possibility of parole, commencing September 20, 2012.

Immediately after sentencing in Case No. 5848, a hearing was held to resolve a charge that Hamm had violated the terms of his probation in Case Nos. 5762 and 6089. Hamm admitted the violation, and the circuit court sentenced him, in Case No. 5762, to eight years' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to any other sentences thenoutstanding, including that just imposed in Case No. 5848; and it sentenced him, in Case No. 6089, to ten years' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentences just imposed.³

In January 2019, Hamm filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that the 2012 sentences exceeded the maximum term fixed by a binding plea agreement. Because the 2014 sentences in Case Nos. 5762 and 6089 incorporated nearly all the outstanding "backup" time, Hamm further alleged that those sentences were infected with the same inherent illegality. Later that same month, the circuit court held a hearing on Hamm's motion, and it subsequently issued an order, denying the motion:

The statements made by [the court] at the plea hearing on January 23, 2012, coupled with the statements made by counsel, as reflected in the transcript, establish that the [court] committed only to a cap of active incarceration applicable to both cases that would not exceed 18 months. The [court] said: "But the, the cap that I'm placing on a period of incarceration is eighteen months." The State said "the State's recommendation is, same recommendation as to both cases, that is a ten year, suspend all but eighteen-month to be served at the Detention Center." The Defendant's attorney, in qualifying him for the plea, said "The max, okay, the maximum is twenty years and he indicated the sentence he's about to give you clearly is going to be within that, so it would not be an illegal sentence . . ."

Hamm then noted this timely appeal.

DISCUSSION

"The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time." Md. Rule 4-345(a). If a sentence is "illegal" within the meaning of this rule, a defendant may file a motion to correct it, "notwithstanding that (1) no objection was made when the sentence was imposed, (2) the defendant purported to consent to it, or (3) the sentence was not challenged in a timely-filed direct appeal." Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460, 466 (2007). Moreover, if a trial court denies a motion made under Rule 4-345(a), the defendant is entitled to appellate review of that denial. State v. Kanaras, 357 Md. 170, 177-84 (1999).

"The scope of this privilege, allowing collateral and belated attacks on the sentence and excluding waiver as a bar to relief, is narrow[.]" Chaney, 397 Md. at 466. An "illegal sentence," as contemplated by Rule 4-345(a), is a sentence that is "intrinsically," id., or "inherently" illegal. Matthews v. State, 424 Md. 503, 519 (2012).

In Maryland, there are three categories of "inherently" illegal sentences that are cognizable under Rule 4-345(a): a sentence imposed "where no sentence or sanction should have been imposed," Johnson v. State, 427 Md. 356, 368 (2012) (quoting Alston v. State, 425 Md. 326, 339 (2012)); a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense, Carlini v. State, 215 Md. App. 415, 427 (2013); and "a sentence imposed in violation of the maximum sentence identified in a binding plea agreement and thereby 'fixed' by that...