Johnson v. State, 225 A.3d 44

Police pursued Dana T. Johnson after traffic violations; he crashed and was taken to the hospital, where officers found 47.18 grams of heroin concealed in his clothing.
Johnson was charged with volume possession (CR § 5-612), possession with intent to distribute, simple possession, attempted elude, and related motor-vehicle offenses.
At bench trial he was convicted of volume possession (CR § 5-612), possession (merged), and attempting to elude; the circuit court sentenced him to 14 years, with the first 5 years without parole.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Johnson petitioned the Maryland Court of Appeals posing two questions: (1) what is the maximum allowable incarceration under CR § 5-612, and (2) whether his 14-year sentence is illegal.
The Court of Appeals held that CR § 5-612 unambiguously sets a 5-year mandatory minimum, and that legislative history and the statutory scheme establish a 20-year maximum; Johnson’s 14-year sentence is therefore legal and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the maximum allowable period of incarceration under CR § 5-612?	Johnson: § 5-612 mentions only a mandatory minimum (“not less than 5 years”), so it is ambiguous as to a maximum; apply rule of lenity → max = 5 years.	State: “not less than” is a floor; § 5-612 is unambiguous; the statutory scheme and legislative history show a 20-year maximum (via prior § 286 / CR § 5-608 incorporation).	Court: § 5-612 unambiguously establishes a 5-year minimum; historical statutory scheme and recodification show the maximum is 20 years.
Was Johnson’s 14-year sentence illegal?	Johnson: Sentence exceeds the only stated term in § 5-612 (5 years) and thus is illegal under Md. Rule 4-345(a).	State: Sentence falls within permissible range under the statute as construed (5–20 years); sentencing court acted within discretion.	Court: Sentence lawful — 14 years (first 5 without parole) falls within 5–20 years; affirmed.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (Any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (Applies Apprendi to sentencing fact-finding; judge may not enhance sentence beyond maximum absent jury finding/admission)
Blackstone v. Sharma, 461 Md. 87 (Md. 2018) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language and presumed legislative intent)
In re S.K., 466 Md. 31 (Md. 2019) (courts may consult legislative history and statutory scheme to check a plain-language reading)
Nichols v. State, 461 Md. 572 (Md. 2018) (rule of lenity as a last-resort tie-breaker when statutory ambiguity remains)
Colvin v. State, 450 Md. 718 (Md. 2016) (defines an "illegal sentence" and when Rule 4-345(a) applies)
Bailey v. State, 464 Md. 685 (Md. 2019) (Md. Rule 4-345(a) reviewed de novo; rule meant to correct inherently illegal sentences)