Donald Azar, Inc. v. City of Atlanta

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a court could not agree to impose a sentence “within the guidelines” but then give a sentence that suspended all but an amount within the guidelines because a reasonable defendant would believe that “within the guidelines” included suspended time
• observing that a sentence imposed in violation of Rule 4-243(c) is “not merely the product of procedural error” but, rather, is “inherently illegal and thereby subject to correction under Rule 4-345(a)”
• “We have deemed sentences inherently ‘illegal’ ... when the sentences exceeded the limits imposed by law, be it statute or rule”
• motion to correct an illegal sentence appropriate when the trial court had unlawfully imposed a sentence that exceeded the penalty provided in a binding plea agreement in accordance with a Maryland Rule
• motion to correct an illegal sentence appropriate when the trial court had unlawfully imposed a sentence that exceeded the penalty provided in a binding plea agreement in accordance with a Maryland Rule
• “We viewed the illegality [of Cuffley’s sentence] as inhering in the sentence itself; the sentence, in other words, was not merely the product of procedural or trial court error.” (emphasis added) (footnote omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).