Tshiwala v. State, 37 A.3d 308

Tshiwala was convicted by separate juries in 1999-2000 on multiple armed robbery and related offenses, receiving an aggregate 70-year sentence from Judge Ferretti.
Post-conviction, a three-judge review panel reduced the sentences from 70 to 39 years in 2007, and those reimposed sentences became the operative sentence.
In 2007 Tshiwala filed a Rule 4-345(e) motion for reconsideration of sentence; it was denied by the panel in a brief order, without explicit statutory references in the order.
In November 2008 Tshiwala filed a Rule 4-345(a) motion claiming the 2007 reconsideration panel lacked jurisdiction and that the prior motion should be reconsidered by a different judge.
Administrative Judge Harrington denied the 4-345(a) motion; Tshiwala appealed, arguing the post-sentencing events were illegal sentences or jurisdictional defects.
The Court held Tshiwala’s complaint did not concern an illegal sentence and thus was not cognizable under Rule 4-345(a); the decision affirmed the circuit court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 4-345(a) motion is cognizable for Tshiwala's claim	Tshiwala asserts panel actions post-sentencing were illegal	The issue concerns post-sentencing procedural matters, not an illegal sentence	Not cognizable under 4-345(a)

Montgomery v. State, 405 Md. 67 (2008) (discusses scope of Rule 4-345(a) and distinguishing illegal sentences from procedural errors)
Evans v. State, 382 Md. 248 (2004) (illegality must inhere in the sentence itself)
State v. Wilkins, 393 Md. 269 (2006) (procedural flaws after sentencing generally do not render a sentence illegal)
Pollard v. State, 394 Md. 40 (2006) (illegality not arising from the sentence itself is not cognizable)
Kanaras v. State, 357 Md. 170 (1999) (illegality must be in the sentence, not in acts of officials)
First Federated Commodity Trust Corp. v. Commissioner, 272 Md. 329 (1974) (distinguishes lack of fundamental jurisdiction from improper exercise of jurisdiction)