Sellman v. State

Weant, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ⁵¹¹ On 29 March 1978, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, the appellant Norman E. Sellman pleaded guilty to, and was thereafter convicted of, separate counts of burglary and larceny. On 10 May 1978, he was committed to the custody of the Division of Correction for a period of ten years for the burglary conviction, as well as for a consecutive eighteen month term for the larceny conviction. These sentences were suspended in favor of five years supervised probation, the conditions of which included completion by Mr. Sellman of the X-Cell Program and his making restitution in the amount of One Thousand, Seventy-nine Dollars ($1,079.00). No appeal was taken from these judgments of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

On 3 March 1980, a petition charging Mr. Sellman with violation of his probation was filed in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County by the Division of Parole and Probation. The petition alleged inter alia that the appellant had violated his probation by leaving the X-Cell Program before he had completed it. At a hearing before the court on 11 April 1980, the appellant’s probation was revoked and the original sentences reimposed. Having noted a timely appeal from the judgment of 11 April 1980, Mr. Sellman asks this Court to answer the following questions affirmatively: 1.

Did the trial judge err in reimposing the original sentence[s] on finding that Appellant had violated the conditions of his probation, without considering the statutory alternative of imposing .. . lesser sentence^]? 2. Did the trial judge err in failing to afford Appellant his right of allocution prior to sentencing? Inasmuch as this case is being reversed on the basis of the appellant’s second contention, we need not and do not address the first issue. At the probation revocation proceeding in the trial court, Mr. Sellman testified on his own behalf.

When he later, i.e., ⁵¹² after all the evidence had been introduced and after his counsel had been heard, but before a decision had been rendered, inquired of the trial judge whether he could say something, the court foreclosed the making of any statement by the appellant by saying: "Enter a finding of guilty.