Robert Laverne Wittwer v. State of Maryland

Summary

The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the denial of Robert Laverne Wittwer’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(a). The court held that removal of the case from Anne Arundel County to Howard County changed venue rather than subject matter jurisdiction, and that Wittwer waived any venue objection. The court further held that the State was not required to refile its notice seeking life without parole after the transfer and that challenges to the plea colloquy were not cognizable under the illegal-sentence rule.

Holdings

1. A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(a) reaches only an illegality inherent in the sentence itself: a sentence not permitted by law or imposed when no sentence should have been imposed. It is not an alternative means of obtaining belated appellate review of antecedent proceedings.
2. Removal of a criminal case from one Maryland circuit court to another under Maryland Rule 4-254(b) is a change of venue, not a divestiture of the originating circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction.
3. An objection to improper venue must be raised by motion before trial under Maryland Rule 4-252; failure to object waives the challenge. A waived venue objection is not cognizable through a Rule 4-345(a) motion.
4. When a removal order transfers only the trial phase, proceedings not encompassed by the order remain properly in the originating court; a guilty plea accepted during a retained pretrial proceeding is validly entered there.
5. A horizontal venue transfer between Maryland circuit courts does not require the State to refile documents previously filed in the originating court. A properly filed notice of intent to seek life without parole travels with the case.
6. A challenge to the adequacy or voluntariness of a guilty-plea colloquy concerns a procedural defect in the plea proceedings, not an illegality inherent in the sentence, and must be raised through an application for leave to appeal or post-conviction relief rather than Rule 4-345(a).
7. Maryland Rule 4-242(c) does not require the court to recite the precise legal elements of an offense on the record before accepting a guilty plea. The defendant must have a basic understanding of the essential substance of the charge, assessed under the totality of the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept Wittwer's guilty plea and impose sentence after the case was removed to Howard County for trial.
2. Whether the State's failure to refile its notice of intent to seek life without parole in Howard County rendered Wittwer's sentence illegal.
3. Whether the alleged failure to establish on the record that Wittwer understood the nature of the first-degree-murder charge rendered his conviction and sentence illegal or otherwise cognizable under Maryland Rule 4-345(a).

Disposition

affirmed