Legal Opinion

Farmer v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided August 26, 2022No. 31/21PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Michael Farmer v. State of Maryland No. 31, September Term 2021 Criminal Procedure – Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence – Cognizability. A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(a) addresses errors that are “inherent” in a sentence. It is not a vehicle for belatedly raising alleged errors in a trial or proceedings that resulted in the sentence, for challenging the administration of the sentence, or for generally litigating the procedures that may govern a future reduction of that sentence or the defendant’s release from custody. Whether State-furnished counsel is…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  2. Roper v. SimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. Graham v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  4. Montgomery v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  5. Chaney v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Jedlicka v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
  2. Malvo v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
  3. Footes v. BishopDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2025
  4. Hamrick v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2024
  5. Johnson v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2023

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API