Bonilla v. State
115 A.3d 98
| Md. | 2015Background
- In 1990 Bonilla entered guilty pleas to two counts of first-degree murder under a binding plea agreement approved by the court pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-243(c); the agreement specified life on Count III and life on Count I with all but 20 years suspended (consecutive).
- The judge said he was bound by the plea agreement and postponed sentencing until after co-defendant DeLeon’s trial; Bonilla testified as promised.
- At sentencing in 1991 defense counsel misstated the counts and reversed the agreed terms; the State (mistakenly) agreed with defense counsel’s recitation and the court imposed the reversed sentences (i.e., a lower sentence on Count III than the approved plea provided).
- Twenty years later Bonilla moved to correct an illegal sentence; the State moved to correct both sentences. The trial court found the original Count III sentence illegal and resentenced consistent with the original plea agreement.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether a sentence below a binding plea agreement imposed without the State’s consent is an "illegal sentence" under Maryland Rule 4-345(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence below a binding plea agreement (without State consent) is "inherently illegal" under Rule 4-345(a) | Bonilla: the low sentence was an error in pronouncement, not an inherently illegal sentence; relief under Rule 4-345(a) should be narrow | State: any deviation from an approved plea (above or below) is inherently illegal and correctable under Rule 4-345(a) | The Court held that a sentence imposed below a binding plea agreement without the State’s consent is inherently illegal and subject to correction under Rule 4-345(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Dotson v. State, 321 Md. 515 (1991) (Rule 4-243(c)(3) requires the court to embody the agreed sentence; deviation is unlawful)
- Chertkov v. State, 335 Md. 161 (1994) (trial court may not modify a sentence imposed under a binding plea agreement absent parties’ consent; reductions require State consent)
- Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) (sentence exceeding the agreed term violated Rule 4-243(c)(3) and was inherently illegal under Rule 4-345(a))
- Matthews v. State, 424 Md. 503 (2012) (clarifies that Rule 4-345(a) remedies apply only to sentences whose illegality inheres in the sentence itself)
- State v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269 (2006) (defines an illegal sentence as one not permitted by law)