Hoile v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing and reaffirming the longstanding rule prohibiting the “appeal of a discretionary denial of a timely motion for modification of sentence under 2 Maryland Rule 4–345(e)” and that motions under the Rule are “entirely committed to a court’s discretion” (emphases added)
• recognizing and reaffirming the longstanding rule prohibiting the “appeal of a discretionary denial of a timely motion for modification of sentence under 2 Maryland Rule 4–345(e)” and that motions under the Rule are “entirely committed to a court’s discretion” (emphases added)
• using same canons and principles of statutory construction to interpret rules of procedure
• rejecting Hoile’s claim that the trial court’s not affording the victim an opportunity to speak at Hoile’s sentencing rendered his sentence illegal, for purposes of Rule 4-345(a), because the sentence was not “illegal on its face”
• “To interpret rules of procedure, we use the same canons and principles of construction used to interpret statutes.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “The new sentence [imposed after a motion for reconsideration was granted] represents a sentence imposed on [the defendant], and as such, is appealable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).