BASHAWN MONTGOMERY RAY v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Hotten, July 28, 2017,
Plea Agreement- A plea bargain stating a cap of “four years on any executed incarceration” was clear and unambiguous; the sentence of 10 years suspend all but 4 was not in violation.

Facts:
On April 18, 2011, Ray pled not guilty on an agreed statement of facts to conspiracy to commit theft and false statement after arrest.
The terms of the agreement were written and included a “cap of four years on any executed incarceration.”
Ray and his attorney had an opportunity to discuss the plea, after which Ray waived his right to a jury and entered into the plea. The judge found Ray guilty.
On August 11, 2011, the judge sentenced Ray to 10 years with all but 4 suspended.
On March 23, 2015, Ray filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Ray argued that he reasonably believed the plea was for 4 years total and that therefore his sentence was unreasonable.
Ray’s motion was denied and he appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the denial.
Ray then requested the Court of Appeals review the case, arguing that his sentence four years earlier was illegal because at the time he reasonably believed he was pleaing guilty to a maximum of 4 years.

Held: The Court of Appeals disagreed.

On April 18, 2011, Ray pled not guilty on an agreed statement of facts to conspiracy to commit theft and false statement after arrest.
The terms of the agreement were written and included a “cap of four years on any executed incarceration.”
Ray and his attorney had an opportunity to discuss the plea, after which Ray waived his right to a jury and entered into the plea. Ray signed a paper at his plea hearing indicating he had been told the maximum sentence he faced was 10 ½ years.
The judge found Ray guilty.
On August 11, 2011, the judge sentenced Ray to 10 years with all but 4 suspended. Ray did not complain at the time.
Almost 4 years later, as his release date neared, Ray filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argued that the 10 total years on the theft count was outside the cap of 4 years mentioned in his plea agreement and therefore he shouldn’t have to be on probation once he was released.
The Circuit Court judge denied his motion and the Court of Special Appeals ruled against him on appeal. Ray appealed one more time.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court of Appeals agreed with the State that Ray was not sentenced in violation of his plea agreement (which would have made his sentence “illegal”). A reasonable person in Ray’s position would have understood he was facing up to 4 years “hard time”, plus additional suspended time.
Plea Bargains- Courts look at plea bargains as “similar to contracts.” First, the court looks to whether the plain language is “clear and unambiguous” as a matter of law. If it’s not ambiguous, then it is upheld.
Plea Bargains- If a plea agreement is ambiguous, the court looks to what a “reasonable lay person” would understand the sentence to be, based on the record at the plea proceeding. If that still leaves the terms ambiguous, they are construed in favor of the defendant.
Plea Bargain- “Executed Sentence” clearly refers to the non-suspended portion of the sentence. It is not ambiguous.