Lead Opinion
In this case, we are asked to determine whether a person may use a motion to correct an illegal sentence as a means to challenge the requirement that he register as a sex offender, even though he does not claim the requirement is a sentence, and is no longer subject to any criminal penalties stemming from his sexual offense conviction. In 1998, Petitioner Kenneth Barnes pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual offense involving a minor under the age of 15. Following his conviction, Barnes was directed to register as a sexual offender pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 1997 Cum. Supp.), Article 27, Section 792. While initially he complied with this requirement, Barnes was later convicted of violating the registration statute by failing to notify local law enforcement of a change in his address. He was placed on probation, and a subsequent violation of that probation resulted in prison time.
Upon being released, Barnes filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(a), in which he argued that his probation and incarceration were the result of the erroneous imposition of the sexual offender registration requirement. The Circuit Court denied Barnes’s motion on the grounds that he was indeed subject to the registration requirement. Barnes appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. In a reported opinion, the intermediate appellate court determined that it had jurisdiction to entertain the case and affirmed the lower court on the merits. See Barnes v. State,
[Whether it was] illegal to retroactively impose sex offender registration under Maryland’s 1997 Sex Offender Registration Act on Mr. Barnes where his alleged offense was committed before July 1, 1997, and he was not previously subject to the requirements of the old 1995 Sex Offender Registration Act[.]
The State, meanwhile, asks
[Whether] the Court of Special Appeals err[ed] in finding that the requirement that Barnes register as a child sexual offender was a sentence that could be challenged at any time under Md. Rule 4-345(a)?[.]
We shall hold, contrary to the holding of the Court of Special Appeals, that Barnes’s claim is not justiciable because he is not currently serving a “sentence” for the purposes of Rule 4-345(a). As there is no “sentence” for this Court to correct, we dismiss his case as moot.
FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
A. Sexual Assault Conviction
In November 1996, the State charged Barnes with second-degree rape, assault with intent to commit rape, third-degree sexual offense, fourth-degree sexual offense, and assault. The victim had reported that, on various occasions between January and May of that year, Barnes had “tried to kiss her[,]” “fondl[e] her[,]” and would “placet ] his fingers in and about her private areas ... like he was trying to tickle her.”
On July 15,1997, a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge ruled that Barnes was not competent to stand trial and committed him to Spring Grove Hospital under the care of the Department of Mental Health and Hygiene. On October 17, 1997, Spring Grove sent a letter to the court, concluding that Barnes was competent to stand trial. On December 1, 1997, the court found that Barnes was competent to stand trial and ordered him to be released from Spring Grove on the condition that he reside with his mother.
On August 31, 1998, Barnes appeared in the Circuit Court on his sexual offense charges. Counsel for Barnes informed the court that Barnes had agreed to an Alford plea on the single count of third-degree sexual offense, and in exchange the state agreed not to prosecute the remaining charges. Mr. Barnes’s understanding was that if he agreed to the plea, the court would impose a suspended ten-year sentence with a supervised probationary period of four years. The court heard the prosecution’s presentation of the allegations against Barnes, and consequently found him guilty of third-degree sexual offense. Pursuant to the agreement with Barnes’s counsel, the court imposed a ten-year suspended sentence with a four-year period of supervised probation. During this proceeding, the court imposed the conditions of Barnes’s probation, including instructions that he continue receiving psychiatric treatment and not have contact with the complaining witness or the prosecutor. The court did not expressly order that Barnes register as a sexual offender.
Following Barnes’s conviction, the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation provided him with a form stipulating that Article 27, Section 692B required him to register as a sexual offender with the Maryland Division of Parole and
B. Violation of Notification Requirement and Subsequent Probation
Barnes finished his four-year supervisory probation in August 2002 without incident. During this period of probation, he complied with all registration requests. After his period of probation ended, however, Barnes moved to a new address and failed to notify his supervising authority as required by law. See Md.Code (2001, 2008 Repl.Vol.), §§ 11-701, 11-704, 11-705, 11-707 of the Criminal Procedure Article.
On September 6, 2005, Barnes’s probationary agent, Corey Immer, filed a report with the Circuit Court indicating, “Barnes’[s] adjustment to probation supervision is satisfactory at this time.” Immer requested that the court allow Barnes to move out of his mother’s house, but the court denied his request on October 5, 2005. Fifteen days later, Barnes’s counsel filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence and Request for Hearing which asked the court to reconsider the condition that Barnes live with his mother. The court did not take action with respect to this motion.
C. Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence
On March 29, 2009, Barnes filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence on the grounds that the courts that had convicted him of third-degree sexual assault in 1998 and failing to notify his supervising authority of his change in address in 2005 lacked “the power to require Barnes to register as a sex offender.” The Circuit Court denied Barnes’s motion on June 15, 2009, stating that “whether a judge orders registration or not, the requirement to register pursuant [to] §§ 11-704 through 707 [of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Article] is statutorily mandated of a defendant convicted of Third Degree Sex Offense for acts involving a child.” When Barnes appealed this decision, the State opposed Barnes’s appeal, in part, on preservation grounds, arguing that the registration requirement is not a “sentence” that may be challenged under Maryland Rule 4-345(a). The Court of Special Appeals rejected the State’s preservation argument, but affirmed the Circuit Court’s denial of Barnes’s motion on the grounds that his 2005 sentence was proper because he was subject to Maryland’s registration statute at that time. See Barnes,
Pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(a), a “court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.” Md. Rule 4-345(a). In its cross-appeal, the State argues that Barnes’s claim is not properly preserved because the requirement to register as a “child sexual offender” is not a sentence for the purposes of Maryland Rule 4-345(a). The State explains that registration is not a sentence imposed by a trial court, but rather, is a civil requirement that arises automatically under the statutory registration scheme. The State emphasizes that, here, the trial court never ordered Barnes to register, nor was registration a condition of his probation, as evidenced by the fact that he was charged with violating the registration statute after his period of probation had expired.
Barnes, on the other hand, explains that he is not asking this Court to characterize the registration requirement as a “sentence” for purposes of Rule 4-345(a). Rather, his Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence is founded upon the illegality of his nearly three-year imprisonment following his 2005 probation violation. Essentially, Barnes claims that his 2005 probation and subsequent incarceration for violating that probation were illegal sentences because they were based on an erroneous conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. He contends that he is not subject to Maryland’s sex offender registration requirement because the timing of various legislative enactments with regard to that registration scheme created a “donut hole” in which certain sexual offenders escape registration. Before potentially considering the merits of that contention, we first must consider whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain Barnes’s appeal.
In permitting a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, Maryland Rule 4-345(a) “creates a limited exception to the general rule of finality, and sanctions a method of opening a judgment otherwise final and beyond the reach of the court.” State v. Griffiths,
Yet, a Rule 4-345(a) motion is circumscribed: “A motion to correct an illegal sentence ordinarily can be granted only where there is some illegality in the sentence itself or where no sentence should have been imposed.” Evans v. State,
Nor is a Rule 4-345(a) motion an end-run around appellate jurisdictional requirements. “Not every procedural irregularity, even in a capital sentencing proceeding, results in ‘a sentence not permitted by law.’ ” Burch v. State,
This Court has emphasized the distinction between errors that inhere in the sentence itself, and other errors that may affect a sentence but do not fall under the purview of Rule 4-345(a). In State v. Kanaras, this Court held that a Rule 4-345(a) motion was not the appropriate vehicle for an inmate’s claim that the Parole Commissioner’s order prohibiting certain inmates from participating in pre-parole programs effectively transformed the inmate’s life sentence with the possibility of parole into a life sentence without the possibility of parole. See generally
As Rule 4-345(a) simply permits a court to revise an illegal sentence, rather than to modify or overturn the underlying conviction, it follows that a court can no longer provide relief under that rule once a defendant has completed his or her sentence. In that instance, there is no longer a sentence to correct, and a court should dismiss the motion as moot unless special circumstances demand its attention. Cf. Cottman v. State,
Here, Barnes filed his Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence on March 26, 2009. Yet, Barnes’s incarceration for his 2005 conviction had ended almost a year earlier, on May 29, 2008, and there is no indication that he is currently subject to any consequences stemming from his convictions, other than the requirement that he register as a sex offender. As Barnes concedes, he is not asking this Court to consider whether the registration requirement is a sentence. He simply wants us to address the issue of Maryland’s registration scheme because it was the basis for his allegedly improper three-year incarceration. In his words:
Mr. Barnes is not asking this Court to find that being required to register as a sex offender is a sentence in the context of Md. Rule 4-345(a). Rather, in filing his Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence, Mr. Barnes cited both the 1998 conviction for [third] degree sexual offense and his 2005 conviction for violating the terms of his probation____ The time that Mr. Barnes spent incarcerated, nearly three years, is the ‘sentence’ which is the foundation of his motion. That sentence was inherently illegal because it was rooted in an illegally imposed requirement to register as a sex offender. (Emphasis added.)
The Court of Special Appeals adopted this logic when deciding to reach the merits of Barnes’s claim: “Barnes claims that he was subjected to an illegal sentence because he should never have been required to register in the first place. Because this alleged illegality inheres in the sentence itself, we have the authority to entertain Barnes’s appeal under Rule 4-345.”
As we explained above, a Rule 4-345(a) motion is “not specifically or exclusively designed to challenge the 'validity’ of incarceration.” Kanaras, 357 Md. at 184,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS VACATED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER BARNES.
GREENE, J., joins judgment only.
BELL, C.J., MURPHY and ELDRIDGE, JJ., dissent.
Notes
. Barnes claims that the victim later recanted her claims against him in a deposition taken on May 9, 2008. According to Barnes, the victim "explained that she lied at the time because she was jealous of the friendship between Mr. Barnes and her older sister ... with whom she was very close.” No such deposition was included in the record because the validity of Barnes's initial conviction is not before us at this time.
. This offense is a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of not more than three years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $5,000 or both. See Md.Code (2001, 2008 Repl.Vol.), § 11-721 of the Criminal Procedure Article.
. Black's Law Dictionary defines "sentence" as "[t]he judgment that a court formally pronounces after finding a criminal defendant guilty; the punishment imposed on a criminal wrongdoer[.]" Black's Law Dictionary 1485 (9th ed. 2009).
. Coram nobis is a common law writ of error that permits a defendant to collaterally attack “prior convictions that no longer impose restraints on [that] defendant[,]” such as incarceration or probation. Fairbanks v. State,
. Our decision today does not necessarily foreclose all remedies for Barnes with respect to his registration requirement. Our judgment is limited to Barnes's current Rule 4-345(a) motion, and we offer no opinion as to whether Barnes has a cognizable civil claim for declaratory judgment regarding the alleged illegality of the registration requirement as it applies to him. See Sinclair v. State,
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
The plurality opinion by Judge Adkins takes the position that a motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to a trial court’s authority under Maryland Rule 4-345(a), should be dismissed as moot if the sentence has been served. I disagree. In my view, the plurality’s reasoning is seriously flawed in several respects.
Most importantly, the plurality’s decision cannot be squared with the plain language of Rule 4-345(a). In a few clear, unqualified words, the Rule states (emphasis added): “The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.” The plurality would insert into the Rule the words “before expiration of the sentence,” or similar language, as a limitation or qualification of the phrase “at any time.” In so doing, the opinion violates the principle that a “court may neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the” enactment. State v. Holton,
Moreover, when the framers of Rule 4-345 and this Court intended a qualification of the phrase “at any time,” they did so expressly. Thus, paragraph (d) of Rule 4-345, relating to a court’s authority over sentences for certain types of offenses, begins as follows (emphasis added): “At any time before expiration of the sentence in a case involving,” etc. Para
This Court has considered a multitude of cases under Rule 4-345(a) or a predecessor rule or procedure. No opinion of this Court in any of those cases, however, supports the plurality’s holding. Presumably, in some of the cases, involving relatively short sentences of confinement, the sentences may have been served. Nevertheless, whether or not the sentence had expired was a non-issue. The only authority cited by the majority is a Wyoming case, Sanchez v. State,
The plurality’s theory is that, “once a defendant has completed his or her sentence * * *, there is no longer a sentence to correct, and a court should dismiss the motion as moot.... ” The sentence, however, still exists. It has not been expunged. A countless number of situations occur where a prison sentence has collateral consequences. The plurality decision states that “there is no indication that [Barnes] is currently subject to any consequences....” (Emphasis added). Nevertheless, he may in the future be subject to consequences resulting from the conviction and sentence.
Finally, I concur with that portion of the Court of Special Appeals’ opinion in which the appellate court, agreeing with Barnes’s procedural argument, held that the merits of the case should be addressed. The Court of Special Appeals stated (Barnes v. State,
“In his brief, Barnes alleges that the circuit court erred in sentencing him to prison for violating a condition of probation that should never have been imposed. Stated differently, Barnes claims that he was subjected to an illegal sentence because he should never have been required to register in the first place. Because this alleged illegality*91 inheres in the sentence itself, we have the authority to entertain Barnes’s appeal under Rule 4-345.
“Barnes asserts that he is ‘currently serving an illegal sentence because he is incorrectly and illegally being forced ... to register as a child sexual offender.’ According to Barnes, the law under which he was convicted in 1998 ‘did not require him to register as a sex offender’ and, therefore, ‘it was illegal to sentence him for not complying with those registration requirements’ in 2005.”
As the plurality opinion does not decide the merits of the case, I shall not discuss the merits.
Chief Judge BELL joins this dissenting opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
While I agree with the plurality that Petitioner is not entitled to the relief that he seeks, I dissent from the holding that this case must be dismissed as moot. I would adopt the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals and affirm the judgment of that Court.