Reddick v. State

MURPHY, Chief Judge. This case concerns the legality of a sentencing judge’s offer to suspend a part of the term of imprisonment imposed on a defendant in return for payment of the victim’s funeral or medical expenses incurred because of the crime. r. Raymond Francis Reddick and Harvey Lee Southall were convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of second degree murder and of the unlawful use of a handgun in contravention of Maryland Code (1992) Art. 27, § 36B. The court (Hammerman, J.) sentenced each defendant to thirty years’ imprisonment on the murder count and ten years, to be served concurrently, on the handgun count.

Under the sentencing guidelines, a sentence of twenty-five years was indicated, but Judge Hammerman departed from the suggested range, citing “the particular degree of violence here” and “the very serious impact that has been left on the family, particularly the son.” The court expressed its sympathy for the victim’s family, and commented on the financial burdens imposed on the family as a result of the crime. It said that there was $3,000 in medical expenses and a $3,000 funeral bill. In an effort to help the victim’s mother shoulder this financial burden, Judge Hammerman said: “I am willing to give you the opportunity of bringing the sentence down into the guidelines by helping to relieve ²⁷² the very serious financial burden ... that has been placed on Mrs. Johnson, the mother of the victim____ I’m anxious to see, if at all possible, that this financial burden be relieved____ If each of you and your families see your way clear and pay your fair share of that financial burden, then I am willing to reduce the sentence by five years and bring it into the guideline range.” Accordingly, the docket entries reflect the judge’s offer to Reddick as follows: “Five years to be suspended from the defendant Mr. Reddick’s sentence if he pays $3000 restitution to the victim’s mother Rosetta Johnson through Parole and Probation by 2-2-91.” Reddick and Southall appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed their convictions in an unreported opinion. We granted certiorari based on a petition filed solely on Reddick’s behalf.

II

Reddick argues that the trial court erred in offering to reduce his term of incarceration if he made a $3,000 contribution to the victim’s expenses. He claims that because he is indigent, the sentence violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. He contends that the criminal justice system cannot constitutionally distinguish between defendants on the basis of wealth or poverty. It is, he says, unconstitutional to incarcerate an indigent defendant for a term longer than that imposed on a similarly situated nonindigent defendant who would be able to make the requisite monetary payment.

Accordingly, Reddick urges us to vacate his sentence, contending that the condition attached to the five-year suspension invalidates the sentence. The State views the sentence as an unconditional, thirty-year term of incarceration. It argues that the only legal effect of the judge’s “offer” was to inform Reddick about ²⁷³ what conduct or developments would persuade him to modify the sentence at a later date, pursuant to his revisory power under Maryland Rule 4-345. Furthermore, the State argues, if the sentence were