Shannon v. State, 227 A.3d 220

Shannon was indicted for possession of a regulated firearm by a prohibited person under PS §5-133(c); the Fifth Count identified a specific .45 Ruger, date, place, and a 2008 prior conviction (possession with intent to distribute).
The Fifth Count also mistakenly described that prior drug conviction as a "crime of violence," a defined term that does not include the drug offense named.
At trial Shannon stipulated that he had a prior conviction that prohibited firearm possession; the only contested fact was possession of the specific firearm. He did not challenge the drafting error in the indictment at trial.
The jury convicted Shannon on the firearms count; he appealed, arguing the drafting error meant the count failed to charge an offense and the court lacked jurisdiction.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Maryland Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding the count charged a cognizable offense, the erroneous phrase was surplusage, and Shannon waived any objection by failing to raise it below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the drafting error (labeling a drug conviction a "crime of violence") render the indictment incapable of charging a crime / deprive the court of jurisdiction?	Shannon: Yes — the mismatch means the Count did not charge a cognizable offense.	State: No — the Count specifically identified a disqualifying drug conviction; the phrase was surplusage and provided adequate notice.	Held: No jurisdictional defect; the Count adequately charged PS §5-133(c) possession; surplus language did not defeat notice.
Was an amendment with Shannon's consent under Rule 4-204 required (or did Shannon's stipulation operate as consent to a constructive amendment)?	Shannon: The error changed the character of the charge and required defendant's consent to amend.	State: No amendment required; correction would not change the offense's character; stipulation did not compel amendment.	Held: Court concluded amendment with consent was unnecessary to correct the drafting error; in any event Shannon waived the objection by not timely raising it.

Ayre v. State, 291 Md. 155 (1981) (charging document must notify defendant of nature and facts of charge)
Counts v. State, 444 Md. 52 (2015) (distinguishing amendments that change the character of an offense)
Johnson v. State, 358 Md. 384 (2000) (history and limits of Rule 4-204 re: amendments)
Johnson v. State, 427 Md. 356 (2012) (rejecting indictment amendments outside Rule 4-204; discussing constructive amendment issue)
Williams v. State, 302 Md. 787 (1985) (a charging document that fails to charge a cognizable crime deprives court of jurisdiction)
Melton v. State, 379 Md. 471 (2004) (unit of prosecution for PS §5-133(c) is the firearm; multiple predicates do not create multiple offenses per firearm)
Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) (surplus words in an indictment do not change the nature of the offense charged)
Carter v. State, 374 Md. 693 (2010) (discussing stipulations to prior convictions to avoid prejudicial proof to jury)