Reyes v. State Opinion Date: November 25, 2025

Maryland Supreme Court Clarifies When a Sentence Is “Imposed” Under Rule 4‑345

Opinion Date: November 25, 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Sentencing, Second‑Degree Assault

In a significant sentencing decision, the Supreme Court of Maryland clarified when a criminal sentence is considered “imposed” under Maryland Rule 4‑345. The Court held that a trial judge may modify or even increase a sentence during an ongoing sentencing hearing, so long as the proceeding has not concluded.

The ruling provides important guidance on sentencing authority, double jeopardy concerns, and the timing of lawful sentence modifications.

Background: Second‑Degree Assault Conviction

A jury convicted the defendant of second‑degree assault. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge initially announced the following sentence:

• One year of incarceration
• All but nine months suspended, to be served on home detention
• Three years of supervised probation

While the judge was advising the defendant of his post‑trial rights, and before the sentencing hearing had concluded, the prosecutor raised concerns about whether the sentence adequately reflected the court’s intent—particularly regarding the amount of backup incarceration if probation were violated.

Sentence Increased Before Hearing Concluded

After a brief discussion and clarification, the trial judge revised the sentence, increasing it to:

• Five years of incarceration
• All but nine months suspended, again to be served on home detention
• Three years of supervised probation

The revised sentence was imposed before the sentencing hearing ended and while the defendant was still present in court.

Appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge had illegally increased the sentence after it had already been imposed, in violation of Maryland Rule 4‑345, which limits a court’s ability to modify sentences once imposed.

The Appellate Court of Maryland rejected this argument, holding that the sentence was not illegally increased because the modification occurred before the sentencing proceeding was complete.

Supreme Court of Maryland: Sentence Not “Imposed” Until Hearing Ends

The case was then reviewed by the Supreme Court of Maryland, which affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision.

Key Holding

The Supreme Court held that under Maryland law:

A sentence is not considered “imposed” for purposes of Rule 4‑345 until the sentencing proceeding has concluded.

As a result:

• A trial court retains authority to modify or increase a sentence during an ongoing sentencing hearing
• Double jeopardy does not attach until the sentencing proceeding ends
• A defendant has no vested expectation of finality while sentencing is still in progress

Because the sentence change occurred before the hearing concluded and while the defendant was present, the modification was lawful.

Why This Decision Matters

This ruling has important implications for criminal defendants and sentencing practice in Maryland:

• Judges may correct or revise sentences during the same hearing
• Defendants cannot assume a sentence is final until the hearing fully concludes
• Rule 4‑345 protections apply only after sentencing is complete

The decision reinforces the importance of having experienced counsel present during sentencing to address potential changes in real time.

Sentencing Is a Critical Stage—Legal Experience Matters

Sentencing is not merely procedural—it can dramatically affect the length and conditions of incarceration, probation, and future consequences.

An experienced criminal defense attorney understands:

• How and when sentences may be modified
• How Rule 4‑345 operates in practice
• When constitutional protections, including double jeopardy, attach

Facing Criminal Charges or Sentencing? We Can Help.

At Gritz, Hanifin & Shih, LLC, we understand every phase of the criminal process—including sentencing. We work diligently to protect our clients’ rights and challenge improper or excessive punishment.

Contact Gritz, Hanifin & Shih, LLC today to discuss your criminal case.
We are committed to protecting your rights and ensuring a fair process.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)