STATE OF MARYLAND v. PHILLIP JAMES CLEMENTS
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Barbera, August 29, 2018,
Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence – A granted motion to correct illegal sentence is not appealable until a new sentence is rendered

This is ridiculous. Putting the victims (including families, etc) through a sentencing proceeding that might be a nullity is completely unreasonable where the legal issues are set at that point. Yes, there is some modicum of judicial economy in handling everything as a package, but that “efficiency” is de minimus and pales in comparison to the injury to the victims

Facts:
In 1989, Phillip Clements was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder along with other crimes. Clements was 17-years old at the time of the murders. Clements was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences with the possibility of parole for each of the three counts of murder and the two counts of attempted murder, plus a total of 23 years on the lesser counts, to be served concurrently with the life sentences.
In 2012, the Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole as a mandatory sentence related to a homicide without an individualized finding that the juvenile was incorrigible (never going to stop being a danger to society). The Supreme Court later declared that this applied retroactively.
In 2016, Clements filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging his three life sentences.
His motion was granted, and the State appealed.
The Court of Special Appeals held that the State wasn’t allowed to appeal until a new sentence was handed down.
The State then requested review by the Court of Appeals.

Held: The Court of Appeals held that a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not “final” and therefore can’t be challenged by the State until a new sentence is handed down.