Kenneth Lee Wharton, III v. State of Maryland

Summary

The Appellate Court of Maryland held that Wharton validly consented in writing to a probation extension because he was informed of its duration and signed an order stating the extension and conditions. The extension was nevertheless an illegal sentence because the court imposed standard probation conditions beyond the statutory purpose of making restitution. The court vacated the judgment and held that the 2021 probation-violation findings made under the illegal extension were void.

Holdings

1. Wharton validly consented in writing to the 2019 probation extension because the court orally advised him of the extension, the extension was written in the probation order, and he signed the order's consent section.
2. When probation is extended beyond the ordinary statutory period solely to permit collection of restitution, the court may not impose additional probation conditions, including standard conditions, beyond conditions related to making restitution and not hindering supervision of restitution payments.
3. The 2021 probation-violation findings were void as a matter of law because they were based on an illegal and therefore null probation extension, and the circuit court lacked fundamental jurisdiction to find violations under that extension.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wharton validly consented in writing to the 2019 probation extension under Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 6-222(c)(1).
2. Whether a probation extension made solely for restitution may include standard or other non-restitution conditions under Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 6-222(c)(2).
3. Whether the illegal 2019 probation extension rendered the 2021 probation-violation findings void.

Disposition

vacated