Moultrie v. State, 205 A.3d 65

In 2008 Tevin Moultrie (then 16) pleaded guilty under a binding plea agreement that capped his total sentence at 30 years; the court sentenced him to 30 years.
Defense counsel informed Moultrie at sentencing about two post‑sentence options: a 30‑day window to seek review by a three‑judge panel (Rule 4‑344) and a 90‑day motion to modify/reduce sentence (Rule 4‑345(e)).
Counsel timely filed a Rule 4‑345 motion in 2008 and asked the court to hold it sub curia, but counsel never requested a hearing or ruling and the five‑year revisory window expired in 2013.
At sentencing counsel incorrectly told Moultrie a three‑judge panel "could raise" his sentence, which was impossible because the plea agreement capped the sentence at 30 years. Moultrie did not seek a three‑judge review.
Moultrie filed a post‑conviction petition in 2016 alleging ineffective assistance for (1) failing to pursue a hearing/ruling on the Rule 4‑345 motion and (2) misadvising him about the three‑judge panel’s ability to increase his sentence; the post‑conviction court denied relief.
The Court of Special Appeals granted leave to appeal limited to those two issues and reversed: it ordered that Moultrie be allowed to seek (a) a belated hearing on the Rule 4‑345 motion and (b) a belated application to a three‑judge panel, each within 30 days of the mandate.

Issue	Moultrie’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to pursue a hearing/ruling on a timely Rule 4‑345(e) motion during the 5‑year revisory period deprived Moultrie of effective assistance	Counsel’s filing the motion and then not securing a hearing or ruling was deficient and prejudicial because it caused loss of the opportunity for reconsideration	No explicit instruction from Moultrie to request a hearing; counsel’s inaction was not equivalent to failing to file the motion	Reversed: counsel’s failure to secure timely action was deficient and prejudicial; Moultrie entitled to a belated hearing on the Rule 4‑345 motion if sought within 30 days of mandate
Whether counsel’s erroneous advice that a three‑judge panel "could raise" the sentence deprived Moultrie of effective assistance and a chance to seek review	Erroneous advice prevented filing an application that could only help or leave sentence unchanged; prejudice is reasonably probable	Post‑conviction court found earlier plea colloquy informed Moultrie of the 30‑year cap, so the sentencing advisal was immaterial	Reversed: misadvice was deficient and prejudicial; Moultrie may file a belated application for three‑judge review within 30 days of mandate

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Flansburg v. State, 345 Md. 694 (failure to file requested post‑sentence motion entitles defendant to belated relief)
Matthews v. State, 161 Md. App. 248 (extending Flansburg: no separate prejudice proof needed for belated motion remedy)
Garrison v. State, 350 Md. 128 (remedy for loss of appellate or post‑sentence rights is belated process)
Dotson v. State, 321 Md. 515 (three‑judge panel cannot increase sentence beyond binding plea agreement)
Harding v. State, 235 Md. App. 287 (appellate leave grants can be limited to specific issues and such limitations are ordinarily binding)
Shoemaker v. State, 225 Md. 639 (analogy to belated review when counsel’s conduct frustrates appellate rights)