 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barr v. Maryland9/30/1994
Opinion by Wilner, C.J.
Following a traffic accident in Ocean City that left a pedestrian seriously injured, appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving bodily injury, failure to remain at the scene, and failure to render reasonable assistance to an injured person. The case was transferred to circuit court following appellant's request for a jury trial.
On December 2, 1993, appellant pled guilty to driving under the influence ; the other charges were nol prossed. The court accepted the plea and sentenced appellant, as a second offender, to one year imprisonment, with all but 60 days suspended. He was also fined $1,000 and placed on supervised probation for a period of two years. As special conditions to the probation, the court ordered that appellant (1) attend AA meetings once a week; (2) abstain from consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages; (3) submit to random urinalysis; and (4) refrain from operating a motor vehicle throughout the entire term of his probation.
On January 3, 1994, appellant filed a motion under Md. Rule 4-345(a) to correct his sentence. In that motion, he argued that the $1,000 fine exceeded that permitted under Md. Transp. Code Ann., § 27-101(f) and that the special condition of his probation prohibiting him from operating a motor vehicle during the two-year term of his probation was illegal under our decision in Towers v. State, 92 Md. App. 183, 607 A.2d 105 (1992). After a hearing, the court granted appellant's motion with respect to the fine but denied it as to the special driving provision.
On appeal from the partial denial of his motion to correct the sentence, appellant presents two questions for our review:
"1. Whether the imposition by the trial court of the special condition of probation prohibiting a defendant from operating a motor vehicle is an unlawful usurpation of authority delegated by the General Assembly to the Motor Vehicle Administration of Maryland, and is therefore illegal.
2. Whether the relief sought by this appeal is available under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Art. 27 Sec. 645A, Md. Ann. Code, . . . thereby barring direct appeal from denial of the Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence."
Because we agree with the State that the denial of a motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence is not directly appealable, we shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Md. Rule 8-602(a)(1) without reaching the merits of appellant's claim.
In 1958, the Legislature enacted the Post Conviction Procedure Act (PCPA), for the purpose of providing a new, statutory remedy for persons seeking to attack, other than by direct appeal, a criminal conviction or a sentence of death or imprisonment imposed as the result of such a conviction. As first enacted, the statute (art. 27, § 645A(a)) permitted any person convicted of a crime and incarcerated under a sentence of death or imprisonment to challenge the legality of the conviction or the sentence on any ground that otherwise would be cognizable under a writ of habeas corpus, coram nobis, "or other common law or statutory remedy," subject to certain exceptions set forth in the statute. The law also permitted a person to seek appellate review if the trial court denied relief.
In what was initially enacted as § 645A(b) and is now codified as § 645A(e), the Legislature made clear that this new remedy did not supplant the existing common law and s
Page 1 2 3 4 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|