Schlick v. State
194 A.3d 49
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Schlick was sentenced in 2005; after a 2008 probation revocation the suspended portion of his 2005 sentence was executed (effective September 15, 2008).
- In 2012 he filed postconviction petitions claiming counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely Motion for Modification of Sentence; trial counsel admitted the failure.
- In March 2013 the circuit court granted leave to file a belated Motion for Modification of Sentence within 90 days; Schlick filed such a motion in May 2013.
- The court delayed scheduling and ultimately questioned whether Rule 4-345’s five-year limit (measured from the 2008 execution date) deprived it of authority to decide a belatedly authorized motion after that five-year period expired.
- The circuit court dismissed the modification motion as untimely under Rule 4-345; Schlick appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Schlick's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4-345’s five-year limit deprives the court of authority to consider a properly authorized belated motion filed within that period but not acted on until after five years | A timely-authorized belated motion preserves the court’s power to decide the motion even if the hearing occurs after five years; the court retains jurisdiction and may consider the motion | Once five years from original sentencing passed the court lost authority under Rule 4-345 to revise the sentence | The court retained fundamental jurisdiction to entertain the belated motion; dismissal was error and case remanded for discretionary consideration on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Chertkov v. State, 335 Md. 161 (1994) (discusses inherent judicial authority to modify judgments)
- State v. Flansburg, 345 Md. 694 (1997) (ineffective assistance for failing to file requested modification motion can justify permission to file belated motion)
- Greco v. State, 347 Md. 423 (1997) (discusses Rule 4-345’s evolution and scope)
- Edwardsen v. State, 220 Md. 82 (1959) (historical development of post-term modification rule)
- State v. Jones, 451 Md. 680 (2017) (description of courts’ inherent powers)
- Pulley v. State, 287 Md. 406 (1980) (definition of fundamental jurisdiction)
- United States v. Stollings, 516 F.2d 1287 (4th Cir. 1975) (federal rule permits reasonable time beyond prescribed period to act on a timely-filed sentence-reduction motion)
- Oglesby v. State, 441 Md. 673 (2015) (statutory ambiguity is construed in favor of the defendant)