Brown, Trian v. State

Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Case Nos. 100291017, 100291018, and 100291020
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 2512
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
TRIAN BROWN
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Wells, C.J.,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 9, 2026
*This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis, nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
Trian Brown, 1 appellant, appeals from the denial, by the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, of a motion to correct illegal sentence. 	For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm
the judgment of the circuit court.
“Following a 2001 jury trial . . . , [Mr.] Brown . . . was convicted of first-degree
rape, child sexual abuse[,] and incest.” Brown v. State, No. 1289, Sept. Term 2023 (filed
February 5, 2024), slip op. at 1. 	“The court sentenced him to a total term of 65 years’
imprisonment.” 	Id. 	On October 28, 2025, Mr. Brown filed the motion to correct illegal
sentence. The motion is confusing, but Mr. Brown appeared to contend that the Division
of Correction impermissibly failed to award him diminution credits for good behavior. On
November 24, 2025, Mr. Brown filed a supplement to the motion, in which he contended
that “the changing of the original indictment without his consent [caused] an illegal
sentence.” On December 17, 2025, the court held a hearing on the motion. On December
29, 2025, Mr. Brown filed a second supplement to the motion, in which he contended that
he “did not knowingly and intelligently waive [his] right to counsel,” and the “trial court
gave [a] wrong instruction to [the] jury twice.”
On January 8, 2026, the court issued an order in which it denied the motion, stating
in pertinent part:
In both his written and oral arguments to this Court, the Defendant
asserts that his sentence is illegal for two reasons. First, that he was charged
with first degree rape, which was a charge which had been elevated from the
charges in the District Court, and second, that he was not awarded his good
time credits in [a] manslaughter case on which he was on probation and
subsequently sentenced on a violation of probation.
1 Mr. Brown is also identified in the record as “Tiran Brown” and “Tiran L. Brown.”
For consistency, we shall identify him as “Mr. Brown.”

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
2
Unfortunately, the Defendant has no actual evidence that his charges
were illegally elevated, and a copy of his indictment is not available through
MDEC, the Maryland Judiciary’s electronic case management system, for
this Court to review. While he may not have been initially charged with first
degree rape in the district court, the circuit court indictment for first degree
rape does not make that charge per se illegal. 	Moreover, Defendant
acknowledges that he was aware at the time of his trial that he was charged
with first degree rape. 	Importantly, Defendant has not shown how the
aggregate sentence of 65 years for first degree rape, sexual child abuse, and
incest is inherently illegal. 	Nor has he shown how the imposition of
concurrent time for the case on which he was on probation makes the
sentence in this matter illegal.
In his supplemental pleading filed on December 29, 2025, Defendant
asserts two additional grounds to support his motion to correct an illegal
sentence. 	First, he asserts that Patrick Kent, one of two attorneys assigned
to his case, was absent from the courtroom when a jury note was discussed.
The portion of the transcript provided by Defendant shows that “Mr. Kent
said from the very beginning that his part in this trial was to do the DNA
cross-examination of the State’s expert and that’s what he did.” Nothing in
the portion of the transcript submitted by the Defendant, where his other trial
counsel was present, shows that the absence of Mr. Kent renders the sentence
illegal. 	Second, Defendant asserts that the court provided incorrect jury
instructions. 	However, the portion of the transcript provided indicates that
the jury was instructed as to sexual child abuse as the instructions existed at
the time of trial. 	Nothing in the portion of the transcript submitted by the
Defendant shows that an error in the jury instructions rendered the sentence
illegal.
(Footnotes omitted.)
Mr. Brown contends that the court erred in denying the motion, because the offense
of first degree rape “was not in the original indictment,” the “Division of Correction
changed a parole-able sentence to one without parole,” trial counsel “show[ed] lack of
experience,” and the trial court “gave [a] wrong instruction.” But, we have recognized that
the scope of a motion to correct illegal sentence is “narrow” and “limited to those situations
in which the illegality inheres in the sentence itself; i.e., there either has been no conviction

— Unreported Opinion —
______________________________________________________________________________
3
warranting any sentence for the particular offense or the sentence is not a permitted one for
the conviction upon which it was imposed and . . . is intrinsically and substantively
unlawful.” Carlini v. State, 215 Md. App. 415, 426 (2013) (internal citation and emphasis
omitted). 	Here, Mr. Brown does not dispute that he was convicted of first degree rape,
child sexual abuse, and incest, or that the sentences imposed by the court for those offenses
are permitted ones. The errors alleged by Mr. Brown do not inhere in any of the sentences
themselves, and hence, the court did not err in denying the motion to correct illegal
sentence.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR 	BALTIMORE 	CITY 	AFFIRMED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.