Bratt v. State

Larry Daniel Bratt v. State of Maryland, No. 39, September Term, 2019. Opinion by Hotten, J. CRIMINAL LAW—SENTENCING—CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED— CORRECTION TO COMMITMENT RECORD—MOTION TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE The Court of Appeals held that the failure to award credit for time served against a sentence was not an illegality to which Rule 4-345 applies. Rather, Rule 4-345 applies to substantive illegalities that exist in the sentence itself. Failure to award credit is a procedural defect that is not appropriately addressed by a motion to correct an illegal sentence because it has no impact on the substance of the sentence or whether the sentence is permitted by law.

Accordingly, the Court held that Petitioner was not entitled to a hearing under Rule 4-345. Rule 4-351 is the appropriate vehicle to address the failure to award credit for time served because Rule 4-351 governs the maintenance of commitment records and dictates that the commitment record shall reflect any credit “allowed to the defendant by law.” Therefore, to achieve a correction or change of the commitment record mandated by Rule 4-351, the appropriate vehicle is a motion to amend the commitment record. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. 02-K-99-000032 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Argued: January 6, 2020 OF MARYLAND No. 39 September Term, 2019 __________________________________ LARRY DANIEL BRATT v. STATE OF MARYLAND __________________________________ Barbera, C.J., McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, Booth, Biran, JJ. __________________________________ Opinion by Hotten, J. _________________________________ Filed: April 28, 2020 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. Suzanne Johnson 2020-04-28 11:01-04:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk This appeal arises from a decision of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, granting a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed by Larry Daniel Bratt (“Petitioner”), after his earlier filed Petition for Credit had been granted and his commitment record adjusted to reflect credit for time served.

The State appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed and held that although a Rule 4-3451 motion to correct an illegal sentence was an appropriate mechanism to request an adjustment to the commitment record, the alleged sentence illegality had been remedied by his prior Petition for Credit, which did not require a hearing. We granted certiorari to consider the following questions: 1. Does the failure of a sentencing judge to award a defendant mandatory credit against the sentence for time served in custody prior to trial render 1 RULE 4-345. SENTENCING—REVISORY POWER OF THE COURT (a) Illegal Sentence.

The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. (b) Fraud, Mistake, or Irregularity. The court has revisory power over a sentence in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. (c) Correction of Mistake in Announcement.

The court may correct an evident mistake in the announcement of a sentence if the correction is made on the record before the defendant leaves the courtroom following the sentencing proceeding. *** (f) Open Court Hearing. The court may modify, reduce, correct, or vacate a sentence only on the record in open court, after hearing from the defendant, the State, and from each victim or victim’s representative who requests an opportunity to be heard. The defendant may waive the right to be present at the hearing. No hearing shall be held on a motion to modify or reduce the sentence until the court determines that the notice requirements in subsection (e)(2) of this Rule have been satisfied.

If the court grants the motion, the court ordinarily shall prepare and file or dictate into the record a statement setting forth the reasons on which the ruling is based. the sentence illegal and subject to correction under Maryland Rule 4- 345(a)? 2. What is the proper remedy to correct the illegality when a sentence does not reflect the proper credit? Cross-petitioner/Respondent, the State, phrases its questions as follows: 1. Is the claim that a sentencing court failed to comply with Md. Code Ann., Crim.

Proc. § 6-218 (e) properly raised in a Rule 4-345(a) motion when the court’s alleged failure to do so is a procedural flaw, i.e., not the result of a determination by the court that the defendant is not entitled to any or only partial credit for time that the defendant spent in pre-sentencing detention?[2] 2. Where the defendant alleges that the sentencing court failed to comply with Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-218 , and there is no dispute that the defendant is entitled to the credit that he or she requests, must the defendant seek correction of the procedural flaw by filing a Rule 4-351[3] 2 In its brief, the State consolidated its questions presented into a single question: When a defendant seeks correction of a commitment record, does that claim raise a procedural issue rather than a substantive claim, such that it is properly addressed as a motion to correct a commitment record, and not as a motion to correct an illegal sentence? 3 RULE 4-351. COMMITMENT RECORD (a) Content.

When a person is convicted of an offense and sentenced to imprisonment, the clerk shall deliver or transmit to the officer into whose custody the defendant has been placed a commitment record containing: (1) The name and date of birth of the defendant; (2) The docket reference of the action and the name of the sentencing judge; (3) The offense and each count for which the defendant was sentenced; (4) The sentence for each count, the date the sentence was imposed, the date from which the sentence runs, and any credit allowed to the defendant by law; (continued . . .) 2 motion or may the defendant seek the same relief by filing a Rule 4- 345(a) motion? We shall affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals, but for different reasons explained infra. BACKGROUND Following a jury trial in August 1983, Petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of two counts of first-degree murder for the 1981 murders of John and Donna Carback.4 At sentencing, two consecutive life terms were imposed. The sentencing judge expressed the following: Well…the [jury] verdict speaks for itself and I’m not going to make any comment upon it.

As to count one, the sentence and judgment of the [c]ourt is that you receive the maximum sentence provided by law which is life. As to count two, the sentence is the same, the maximum provided by law, life. Each of the sentences to be concurrent, I’m sorry, consecutive, one to the other. (. . . continued) (5) A statement whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively and, if consecutively, when each term is to begin with reference to termination of the preceding term or to any other outstanding or unserved sentence; (6) the details or a copy of any order or judgment of restitution; and (7) the details or a copy of any request for victim notification. *** (b) Effect of Error.

An omission or error in the commitment record or other failure to comply with this Rule does not invalidate imprisonment after conviction. 4 For reasons that will become apparent, the facts of the underlying crime are irrelevant to our resolution of the issues presented. 3 Petitioner appealed the conviction to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed. Bratt v. State, 62 Md. App. 535 , 490 A.2d 728 , cert. denied, 304 Md. 95 , 497 A.2d 818 (1985). Neither the trial judge nor defense counsel referenced any credit for time served against Petitioner’s consecutive life terms, and Petitioner’s commitment record reflected the same. Because the commitment record issued did not indicate a start date, the consecutive life terms began on the date of sentencing, August 8, 1983.

In 1992—nine years after Petitioner was sentenced—Petitioner sent a communication to the trial judge requesting credit for time served pre-trial, which included ten months in the Anne Arundel County Detention Center and three months in DeKalb County, Georgia.5 Petitioner also requested that the court modify his two life sentences from consecutive to concurrent terms of imprisonment. Both requests were denied. Approximately three years later on July 26, 1995, the Commitment Record Specialist from the Maryland Division of Corrections (“DOC”), Ava Gift, sent a letter to the court, which reflected that Petitioner had been in pre-trial custody at the Anne Arundel County Detention Center from October 26, 1982 until August 8, 1983. In the letter, Ms. Gift informed the court that Petitioner was entitled to 48 days of “good conduct” credits.

These “good conduct” credits were not the equivalent of pre-trial credit for time served. She also inquired whether Petitioner’s sentence should commence on the date of his detention in 5 Petitioner was arrested on July 16, 1982 in DeKalb County, Georgia on unrelated charges. On August 17, 1982, an arrest warrant was issued for Petitioner, in relation to the murder of John and Donna Carback. Petitioner was held in custody in the DeKalb County jail from the date of his Georgia arrest until his transfer to Maryland on October 26, 1982.

The charges stemming from the Georgia arrest were dismissed on November 10, 1982. 4 Anne Arundel County or the date of sentencing. There was no mention of the time Petitioner asserted he had served in Georgia prior to his detention in Anne Arundel County, nor was this time credited. On August 15, 1995, the court issued an amendment to the commitment record. The amendment reflected that Petitioner had earned “48 days credit,” but did not specify when the sentence was to commence.

Ms. Gift sent a follow-up correspondence to the trial judge on August 24, 1995, inquiring whether the “sentence imposed on August 8, 1983 should effectively begin on October 26, 1982[.]” In response, the trial court issued a September 8, 1995 order, noting that Petitioner was entitled to credit for time served, commencing from the date of incarceration at the Anne Arundel County Detention Center. As such, Petitioner was granted just 48 days of credit for good conduct and credit for time served in Anne Arundel County prior to the date of conviction. More than twenty years later, Petitioner filed the two motions underlying this appeal. On October 18, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Pre-Trial Incarceration Credit and Correction of Commitment Record (“Petition for Credit”) arguing that he was entitled to 102 total days of credit for the pre-trial time served in Georgia preceding his transfer to the Anne Arundel County Detention Center, and that the credit awarded to date only reflected time served pre-trial after his transfer to Maryland.6 Petitioner alleged that his 6 Petitioner attached a “Proof of Incarceration” form and other documentation reflecting that he had been held in custody in Georgia from the date of his arrest until his transfer to Maryland.

Petitioner did not provide this documentation with his prior request for credit for time served. 5 sentence should have commenced on July 16, 1982, the date of his detention in Georgia, instead of October 26, 1982. In the Petition for Credit, Petitioner requested a hearing pursuant to Rule 4-345(f), which requires that, in the context of an illegal sentence, a “modif[ication], reduc[tion], correct[ion], or vacat[ion] of a sentence” be conducted “only on the record in open court, after hearing from the defendant, the State, and from each victim or victim’s representative who requests an opportunity to be heard.” Md. Rule 4- 345(f). The State did not challenge the relief sought in the Petition for Credit, but argued that Petitioner was not entitled to a hearing on the Petition. On November 3, 2017, Petitioner’s Petition for Credit was granted without a hearing.

The court ordered the clerk to amend the commitment record to reflect that Petitioner’s sentence began on July 16, 1982. Accordingly, the clerk issued a new commitment record on November 6, 2017. Petitioner’s counsel then filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence (“Motion for Modification”), which the trial judge dismissed after determining the motion was “prematurely filed.” On January 30, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence (“Motion to Correct”). In his motion, he again argued that the original sentencing judge failed to apply the appropriate credits for time served, and “pursuant to Maryland Rule 4- 345(f) an illegal sentence can be corrected ‘. . . only on the record in open court.’” His primary concern was the failure of the court to hold a hearing on the matter in November 2017.

Petitioner alleged that the November 2017 amendment to his commitment record “was of no legal force or effect” in the absence of a hearing. According to Petitioner, 6 because the amendment was “of no legal force or effect[,]” his original sentence without the appropriate credit for time served was still in effect and that sentence constituted an illegal sentence, needing correction. Petitioner also filed a Motion for Modification to be held sub curia, in the event the court disagreed that a hearing was required and denied the Motion to Correct. The trial court granted the request for a hearing and scheduled the matter for February 28, 2018.

During the hearing, the State argued that the commitment record could be corrected under Maryland Rule 4-351, and that the failure to award credit did not constitute an illegal sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345. The State expressed concern that a judicial determination that the failure to award credit constitutes an illegal sentence would create “a cottage industry of searching for credit on all cases to bring people back for motions for modification.” Thereafter, the court amended the commitment record from the bench so that the imposed sentence began on July 16, 1982, but continued the case to May 3 and June 5, 2018 to allow both parties to prepare for further argument on the motion. On July 3, 2018, the Honorable Stacey McCormack issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order, finding that the original sentence was in fact illegal, and that the 2017 amendment was insufficient to correct the illegal sentence as “a hearing in open court was required.” The judge wrote, [t]here is no question that Maryland Rule 4-345(a) specifically provides that a “[c]ourt may correct an illegal sentence at any time.” There is also no question in this case that the Defendant is entitled to 102 days of pretrial credit. The State conceded as much.

Thus, the only question for this [c]ourt to decide is what section of the Maryland Rules apply in this case. As previously noted, the Defendant contends that [his] sentence, as is, constitutes an illegal sentence and that pursuant to Md. Rule 4-345(a) and (f) 7 that illegal sentence (1) may be corrected at any time and (2) requires a hearing in open court. The State disagrees and contends that the sentence in this case is not the kind of illegal sentence contemplated by Md. Rule 4-345 and that the error in this case can [be corrected] under Maryland Rule 4-351. The reason for the disagreement is simple.

The law in Maryland is clear. If this [c]ourt were to find that Md. Rule 4-345 applies[,] then the Defendant is entitled to file a [Motion for] Modification of Sentence within 90 days of the imposition of the corrected sentence. If this [c]ourt were to find that Md. Rule 4-351 applies, the Defendant would not be permitted to file such a motion. According to the trial judge, Petitioner was “serving two consecutive life sentences PLUS 102 days for two counts of first-degree murder when the maximum sentence allowed by law would be two consecutive life sentences.” (Emphasis in original).

In open court, the judge vacated the original sentence and resentenced Petitioner to two consecutive life terms—the first term commencing on July 16, 1982. The trial judge advised Petitioner that, as a result of her decision, he was entitled to file a Motion for Modification in the circuit court, but was required to do so within 90 days of the court’s decision, noting that the previously filed Motion for Modification was premature and would not be considered. Petitioner filed a new Motion for Modification on October 29, 2018 and that motion was held sub curia. On January 28, 2019, the clerk corrected the commitment record to reflect a “[s]entence start date of July 16, 1982 with 388 days credit for time served” in Georgia and Maryland prior to trial.

The State timely appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing that the failure to award credit for time served is not a substantive illegality that is properly addressed through a Rule 4-345 motion to correct an illegal sentence. 8 Opinion of the Court of Special Appeals In a reported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reversed. State v. Bratt, 241 Md. App. 183 , 209 A.3d 209 (2019). The Court found that an alleged denial of credit for time served may be addressed in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 4-345(a) and (f). However, the Court noted that the 2017 amendment to the commitment record reflecting that Petitioner was incarcerated in July 1982 and was entitled to credit for time served was sufficient to correct any resulting sentence illegality.

Id. at 198 , 209 A.3d at 218 . Because of the amendment, “there was no illegality in either the term of his sentence or the amount of credit he had been afforded at the time he filed his 2018 Motion to Correct.” Id. at 198 , 209 A.3d at 218 . Therefore, the Court found that the trial judge erred by granting the 2018 Motion to Correct, striking the then-existing sentence, and imposing the same sentence with credit for time served. Id.

Relying on Smith v. State, the Court reasoned that a motion to correct an illegal sentence would have been an appropriate mechanism for Petitioner to address the lack of credit for time served had the earlier Petition for Credit not resolved the issue, because the “failure to give proper credit for time served before conviction . . . results in a separate violation of a statutory requirement to provide [] credit against that term.” Id. at 190 , 209 A.3d at 213 n. 2 (citing Smith v. State, 31 Md. App. 310, 320 , 356 A.2d 320, 325 (1976) (“[T]he 12-year term imposed was legal and the only aspect of the sentence that was illegal was the lack of credit for time served.”)). The Court found the State’s argument that the failure to award credit is a “procedural issue,” not a substantive illegality that is properly addressed through a Rule 4-345 motion, unpersuasive because the failure to award credit 9 for time served is “a defect that [] increases the length of time an inmate is required to serve beyond what is permitted by the statute.” Id. at 193, 209 A.3d at 215 . The Court reasoned that the “increase” in the length of time served rendered the sentence illegal, and given the substantive illegality, the failure to award credit was the “proper subject of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.” Id. at 194 , 209 A.3d at 216 . In sum, the Court concluded that: (1) Mr. Bratt’s sentence, since it was initially imposed in 1983, has been two life terms of imprisonment to be served consecutively, (2) Mr. Bratt’s statutory entitlement to credit for time served was recognized by the court in 1995, (3) in November 2017, the court ordered that an amendment be made to the commitment record to correct an erroneous calculation of that credit that had apparently been based on incomplete information, (4) no hearing was required before that amendment, because the change could be accomplished pursuant to Rule 4-351(a), and (5) as a result of the 2017 Amendment, there was no illegality in either the term of his sentence or the amount of credit he had been afforded at the time he filed his 2018 Motion to Correct.

Id. at 197–98, 209 A.3d at 218 . STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue of whether the failure to award credit against a sentence for time served constitutes an illegality is a question of law. State v. Crawley, 455 Md. 52, 66 , 166 A.3d 132, 140 (2017) (citing Meyer v. State, 445 Md. 648, 663 , 128 A.3d 147, 156 (2015)) (“Whether a sentence is an illegal sentence under Maryland Rule 4–345(a) is a question of law[.]”). This Court reviews purely legal questions de novo—without deference to the decisions of the court(s) below.

Id. 10 We construe the meaning of Maryland Rules using the well-settled principles of statutory construction and interpretation. Bailey v. State, 464 Md. 685, 696 , 212 A.3d 912, 918 (2019) (citing Lee v. State, 332 Md. 654, 658 , 632 A.2d 1183, 1185 (1993)). “We thus look to the plain meaning of the language employed in these rules and construe that language without forced or subtle interpretations designed to limit or extend its scope.” Lee, 332 Md. at 658 , 632 A.2d at 1185 (internal citations omitted). When interpreting the Rules and clarifying an ambiguity in the language, we may look to external evidence, such as prior Maryland case law. See Greco v. State, 347 Md. 423, 429 , 701 A.2d 419, 422 (1997) (interpreting prior Maryland case law to determine the meaning of the word “imposition” in the context of Maryland Rule 4-345(b)).

DISCUSSION The trial court erred in granting the motion to correct an illegal sentence, because it was not the appropriate mechanism for challenging the failure to award credit against a sentence. Petitioner contends that he was not given the full credit against his sentence for time spent in custody prior to his transfer to Maryland, and the 2017 amendment to his commitment record, resulting from his Petition for Credit, was “of no legal force or effect” because the presiding judge failed to hold a hearing on the motion before issuing the correction. He argues that the failure to apply credit for time served in another jurisdiction was a “sentence illegality” under Maryland Rule 4-345 that entitled him to a hearing under the same Rule and the failure to hold the hearing was “yet another illegality” subject to correction. 11 The State maintains that Rule 4-345 is inapplicable to the case at bar. According to the State, Rule 4-345 is the appropriate mechanism to correct a substantive sentence illegality and the failure to award credit against a sentence is merely a procedural defect, having no bearing on whether the sentence imposed was legally permissible.

The State also argues that the underlying credit discrepancy was not a substantive illegality, to which Rule 4-345 applies, because the failure to award credit for time served did not “inhere” in the sentence itself. The State contends that Rule 4-351 is the proper vehicle for the court to correct an issue with a commitment record in accordance with Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article (“Crim. Proc.”) § 6-218,7 which governs entitlement to credit for time served in custody. We agree. 7 Crim.

Proc. § 6-218 provides, in relevant part: Credits against definite or life sentence, or minimum and maximum terms of indeterminate sentence (b)(1) A defendant who is convicted and sentenced shall receive credit against and a reduction of the term of a definite or life sentence, or the minimum and maximum terms of an indeterminate sentence, for all time spent in the custody of a correctional facility, hospital, facility for persons with mental disorders, or other unit because of: (i) the charge for which the sentence is imposed; or (ii) the conduct on which the charge is based. (2) If a defendant is in custody because of a charge that results in a dismissal or acquittal, the time that would have been credited if a sentence had been imposed shall be credited against any sentence that is based on a charge for which a warrant or commitment was filed during that custody. (continued . . .) 12 Credit for time served in the custody of a correctional facility is mandatory. Crim.

Proc. § 6-218; see also Lawson v. State, 187 Md. App. 101, 107 , 975 A.2d 357, 360 (2009) (“The [] plain meaning [of Section 6-218] is that, upon conviction, a defendant must be credited for time he has served in custody ‘because of’ that crime[.]”). It is undisputed that the Petitioner was entitled to credit for time served pre-trial, and that the failure to award such credit warranted correction. The parties also agree that Petitioner was in custody beginning on July 16, 1982, and accordingly, the correct start date for his sentence was July 16, 1982. The disagreement concerns the appropriate mechanism through which a court may achieve a correction to the commitment record to reflect credit for time served— a Rule 4-345 Motion to Correct or a motion to amend the commitment record pursuant to Rule 4-351.

I. The failure to award credit does not render the sentence illegal, and therefore, a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not the proper mechanism for addressing the credit issue. A. The failure to award credit for time served is a procedural deficiency that does impact the substance of the sentence. Maryland Rule 4-345 is a vehicle for sentence modifications where an illegal sentence has been imposed. An illegal sentence is one that is “not permitted by law.” State (. . . continued) (3) In a case other than a case described in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the sentencing court may apply credit against a sentence for time spent in custody for another charge or crime.

The purpose of Section 6-218 is “to ensure that a defendant receive as much credit as possible for time spent in custody as is consistent with constitutional and practical considerations.” Fleeger v. State, 301 Md. 155, 165 , 482 A.2d 490, 495 (1984). 13 v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269, 273 , 900 A.2d 765 , 767–68 (2006) (quoting Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422, 427 , 488 A.2d 949, 951 (1995)). Rule 4-345 applies in “those situations in which the illegality [of the sentence] inheres in the sentence itself; i.e., there either has been no conviction warranting any sentence for the particular offense or the sentence is not a permitted one for the conviction upon which it was imposed and, for either reason, is intrinsically and substantively unlawful.”8 Chaney v.