Wilson v. State

Couch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Kenneth Maurice Wilson was convicted of rape and robbery in 1975 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and ten years, concurrent, for the robbery, by the Criminal Court of Baltimore. He was also sentenced, in the same court under a different conviction, to ten years for ⁶⁷⁶ perverted sex acts and two years for carnal knowledge, these sentences to run consecutive to each other but concurrent to the sentence for the rape conviction. These latter convictions were subsequently reversed because of a finding by the Court of Special Appeals that Wilson had been denied a speedy trial.

Wilson v. State, 44 Md. App. 1 , 408 A.2d 102 (1979). In December, 1978, pursuant to Wilson’s motion for a reduction of sentence, the trial judge reduced the life imprisonment sentence to twenty-one years. If nothing further had taken place, this matter, no doubt, would not be before us, but the trial judge further modified the robbery sentence, as well as those for the sex acts and carnal knowledge convictions, by making them run consecutive to the twenty-one year sentence for the rape conviction. Wilson sought relief from the sentencing judge, to no avail.

Subsequently he filed a petition for post conviction relief raising, initially, the illegality of the above-modified sentence and, later, by a supplement to the petition, two additional issues. These supplemental issues were withdrawn at the evidentiary hearing held in March, 1980. The hearing judge denied Wilson any relief, stating in part: "Despite the fact that a change from concurrent' to consecutive occurred, the overall effect of the modification was to lessen the Petitioner’s sentence. It is the totality of the picture that is important in the instant sentencing situation.

The only case cited as authority to the contrary by Petitioner pointedly did not decide the issue. Dawson-vs-State, 17 Md. App. 316 . Since the modification of the Petitioner’s sentence did produce an overall reduction of time to be served, there was no violation of Maryland Rule 774 (b).” We believe the trial judge erred in denying relief and