11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dopkowskigreen2 sentences2015Dopkowski, 325 Md. at 679 , 602 A.2d at 1189 (holding that in imposing a sentence for violation of probation, a trial court is not required to provide explicit findings indicating it took into account unsworn statements made by defendant). 2015Dopkowski, 325 Md. at 679 , 602 A.2d at 1189 (holding that in imposing a sentence for violation of probation, a trial court is not required to provide explicit findings indicating it took into account unsworn statements made by defendant). | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Brooks v. State, 439 Md. 698, 736-42 , 98 A.3d 236 (2014). 29 *699 The Supreme Court considered a similar argument concerning two overlapping federal statutes that prohibited possession of a firearm by a convicted felon but carried different maximum penalties, and declined to apply the rule of lenity to negate the more stringent sentencing provision. 2015See, e.g., Brooks v. State, 439 Md. 698, 736-42 , 98 A.3d 236 (2014). 29 *699 The Supreme Court considered a similar argument concerning two overlapping federal statutes that prohibited possession of a firearm by a convicted felon but carried different maximum penalties, and declined to apply the rule of lenity to negate the more stringent sentencing provision. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Purcellgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214, 220 , 674 A.2d 936, 939 (1996) (upholding State’s right of appeal where court granted Purcell probation before judgment in violation of § 641(a)(2), thus “failfing] to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code”); Shilling v. State, 320 Md. 288, 294 , 577 A.2d 83, 86 (1990) ("For our purposes, a sentence is specifically mandated when the legislature prohibits probation before judgment or suspension of the imposition of sentence.”). 2005See State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214, 220 , 674 A.2d 936, 939 (1996) (upholding State’s right of appeal where court granted Purcell probation before judgment in violation of § 641(a)(2), thus “failfing] to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code”); Shilling v. State, 320 Md. 288, 294 , 577 A.2d 83, 86 (1990) ("For our purposes, a sentence is specifically mandated when the legislature prohibits probation before judgment or suspension of the imposition of sentence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Shilling v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214, 220 , 674 A.2d 936, 939 (1996) (upholding State’s right of appeal where court granted Purcell probation before judgment in violation of § 641(a)(2), thus “failfing] to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code”); Shilling v. State, 320 Md. 288, 294 , 577 A.2d 83, 86 (1990) ("For our purposes, a sentence is specifically mandated when the legislature prohibits probation before judgment or suspension of the imposition of sentence.”). 2005See State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214, 220 , 674 A.2d 936, 939 (1996) (upholding State’s right of appeal where court granted Purcell probation before judgment in violation of § 641(a)(2), thus “failfing] to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code”); Shilling v. State, 320 Md. 288, 294 , 577 A.2d 83, 86 (1990) ("For our purposes, a sentence is specifically mandated when the legislature prohibits probation before judgment or suspension of the imposition of sentence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Knight v. Stategreen1 sentence1973See Knight v. State, 7 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2020Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 12-302(c) provides, in pertinent part: (c)(1) In a criminal case, the State may appeal as provided in this subsection. (2) The State may appeal from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss or quashing or dismissing any indictment, information, presentment, or inquisition. (3) The State may appeal from a final judgment if the State alleges that the trial judge: (i) Failed to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code; or (ii) Imposed or modified a sentence in violation of the Maryland Rules. (4)(i) In a case involving a crime | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2019The agreement, therefore, induced the plea, secured the finding of guilt, and gave the court the authority to impose sentence.”14 Because of that alleged inducement, he avers that “[t]he relationship between the agreement, conviction, breach and illegal sentence are therefore so intrinsically intertwined that the remedy cannot be limited merely to sentence correction; the error does not affect only the sentence, but infects and vitiates the regularity of the underlying conviction itself.” Hughes also refers us to Johnson v. State, 427 Md. 356 (2012) to support his assertion that [b]ecause the | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Manck
green
2 sentences2018These "[r]estrictions on the State's ability to appeal ... have been strictly construed against the State." Manck , 385 Md. at 597 , 870 A.2d 196 . 2018These "[r]estrictions on the State's ability to appeal ... have been strictly construed against the State." Manck , 385 Md. at 597 , 870 A.2d 196 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Clipper v. State
green
2 sentences2001As appellant himself notes, however, when a sentence is executed as a result of a violation of probation, the “original sentence is the only true punishment; the probation revocation is merely the withdrawal of favorable treatment *22 previously accorded the defendant.” Clipper v. State, 295 Md. 303, 313 , 455 A.2d 973 (1983). 2001As appellant himself notes, however, when a sentence is executed as a result of a violation of probation, the “original sentence is the only true punishment; the probation revocation is merely the withdrawal of favorable treatment *22 previously accorded the defendant.” Clipper v. State, 295 Md. 303, 313 , 455 A.2d 973 (1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2001Both were grounded on the assertion that the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), *195 rendered his sentencing proceeding invalid. 2001Both were grounded on the assertion that the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), *195 rendered his sentencing proceeding invalid. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Booth v. State
green
2 sentences1992Booth v. State, 316 Md. 363 , 558 A.2d 1205 (1989) (Booth III). 1992Booth v. State, 316 Md. 363 , 558 A.2d 1205 (1989) (Booth III). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Deinhardt v. State
green
1 sentence1976One of the grounds for this motion was that Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.