Alston v. State, 40 A.3d 1028

Alston was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses in 1999 and sentenced to life without parole plus additional terms.
In 2005, the circuit court granted postconviction relief, vacating convictions and sentences and ordering a new trial.
The State did not seek direct appeal within the postconviction proceeding.
Forty-four days later, the State moved to reconsider the court’s postconviction order.
The court reopened the proceeding, denied relief, and reimposed the original convictions and sentences.
Alston then filed a Rule 4-345(a) motion in 2008 seeking correction of illegal sentences; the circuit court denied without a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reimposition of vacated sentences was illegal	Alston argues reimposition violated Rule 4-345(a)	State contends reopening under § 7-104 authorized reimposition	Yes; reopening was unauthorized and illegal, but relief lies under Rule 4-345(a) against illegal imposition.
Whether the illegal reimposition is cognizable under Rule 4-345(a)	Rule 4-345(a) allows correction of illegal sentences	Rule 4-345(a) applies only to illegality inherent in the sentence	Yes; illegality in the postconviction reimposition is cognizable under Rule 4-345(a).

Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422 (Md. 1985) (restitution order not authorized; illegal sentence corrected under Rule 4-345(a))
Ridgeway v. State, 369 Md. 165 (Md. 2002) (no sentence should have been imposed on acquitted charges; Rule 4-345(a) relief)
Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248 (Md. 2004) (relevant limits of Rule 4-345(a) relief)
Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460 (Md. 2007) (illegality must inhere in the sentence for Rule 4-345(a) relief)
State v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269 (Md. 2006) (sentencing error not cognizable unless inherent in sentence)
Grayson v. State, 354 Md. 1 (Md. 1999) (discussion of petition limits under Postconviction Procedure Act)