Colvin v. State, 150 A.3d 850

In 1989 Colvin was tried for murder and related charges; the jury foreperson announced the verdicts in open court and then the clerk polled the jurors but did not individually poll the foreperson who had just spoken. The court hearkened the verdict and the jury assented.
Colvin did not object at trial to the polling procedure, did not raise the issue on direct appeal, and did not object at sentencing. He was convicted and sentenced to life plus 20 years.
In 2013 Colvin filed a Maryland Rule 4-345(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the polling method failed to show juror unanimity because the foreperson was not separately polled, rendering the verdicts and resulting sentences illegal.
The circuit court denied relief, concluding the claim was not cognizable under Rule 4-345(a) and, on the merits, that the foreperson’s announcement plus the hearkening ensured unanimity.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed on the merits (one judge dissenting as to cognizability). The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether the claim is cognizable under Rule 4-345(a).

Issue	Colvin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether an alleged procedural defect in jury polling (foreperson not individually polled) can be raised under Md. Rule 4-345(a) as a claim of an "illegal sentence"	Polling omission means record fails to show unanimous verdict; thus sentence is illegal and correctable at any time under Rule 4-345(a)	Rule 4-345(a) is limited to substantive illegality of sentence; procedural defects must be preserved and raised on direct appeal	Not cognizable under Rule 4-345(a); procedural polling error is not an "illegal sentence" claim

State v. Griffiths, 338 Md. 485 (describing Rule 4-345(a) as a limited exception to finality)
Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460 (Rule 4-345(a) permits correction of sentences illegal in substance despite waiver)
Baker v. State, 389 Md. 127 (procedural or non-substantive claims not cognizable under Rule 4-345(a))
Wilkins v. State, 393 Md. 269 (Rule 4-345(a) is not a vehicle for belated appellate review of procedural sentencing matters)
Tshiwala v. State, 424 Md. 612 (jurisdictional/procedural sentencing complaints are not "illegal sentences")
Hoile v. State, 404 Md. 591 (sentencing process defects that do not make sentence unlawful on its face are not cognizable under Rule 4-345(a))
Santiago v. State, 412 Md. 28 (hearkening or polling is required to finalize a verdict; hearkening serves same purpose as polling)
Smith v. State, 299 Md. 158 (hearkening and polling both secure juror assent)
Jones v. State, 384 Md. 669 (hearkening functions comparably to polling to ensure accuracy of verdict)
Colvin-El v. State, 321 Md. 501 (prior cert. denial in Colvin’s direct appeal)
Colvin v. State, 226 Md. App. 131 (Court of Special Appeals decision affirming denial of Rule 4-345(a) motion)