Merritt v. Corcoran

BLOOM, Judge. When the trial court has determined that a violation of a condition of probation has occurred, the court may resentence but may not impose a sentence greater than that which was originally imposed and suspended. The trial court, upon its determination that a probationer has violated one or more conditions of probation, enjoys many options. “These options vary from continuing the probation to reimposing the full remaining term of a suspended sentence.” State v. Dopkowski 325 Md. 671, 678 , 602 A.2d 1185 (1992). (Citations omitted.

Emphasis added.) The problem in this case arose because a trial court, having found a violation of probation, imposed an illegal sentence. In 1982, appellant, James Merritt, pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to eight crimes. The court imposed a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences, but execution of those sentences was suspended in favor of probation. In March of 1983, appellant pleaded guilty to another crime.

As a result of that conviction, the court revoked appellant’s probation and ordered execution of the suspended sentences. In December of 1990, the court granted a reconsideration of appellant’s sentences and suspended execution of the unserved balance of those sentences in favor of probation. Appellant went on another crime spree. In 1992, he was convicted of crimes in Baltimore, Calvert, Charles, and Prince George’s Counties.

As a result of those convictions, the probation granted in 1990 was revoked. At that point, the court could have ordered execution of the remaining term of the unserved balance of the sentences suspended in 1990. Instead, the court purported to direct execution of the entire sentences (including the portions ¹¹¹ that were not suspended in 1990) with credit for time served. Although it may have appeared at the time to amount to the same thing, it was not.

It was an illegal sentence. As we mentioned at the outset, when a court finds a violation