DeBerry, Shaunesi Y. v. State

*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.
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case No.: C-02-CR-22-001623
UNREPORTED*
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 2298
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
SHAUNESI Y. DEBERRY
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 16, 2026

‒Unreported Opinion‒
A jury in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County convicted Appellant
Shaunesi Y. DeBerry of second-degree assault. The court later sentenced her to three years’
incarceration, all but time served suspended, followed by three years’ probation. This Court
then affirmed her conviction and sentence on direct appeal. DeBerry v. State, Nos. 114,
774, & 1526, Sept. Term, 2023 (filed April 4, 2024) (per curiam).
DeBerry now appeals from the denial, without a hearing, of her motion to correct
illegal sentence. We review de novo whether a sentence is an illegal sentence. State v.
Crawley, 455 Md. 52, 66 (2017).
DeBerry contends that her sentence is illegal because the court did not make a
finding that the offense for which she was convicted was “domestically related,” as
required by Section 6-233 of the Criminal Procedure Article. Even if true, this would be a
mere “product of procedural error” and, as such, not cognizable as an issue of sentence
legality. 1 Bailey v. State, 464 Md. 685, 696 (2019). Accordingly, the court did not err in
denying DeBerry’s motion to correct illegal sentence.
JUDGMENT 	OF 	THE 	CIRCUIT
COURT 	FOR 	ANNE 	ARUNDEL
COUNTY 	AFFIRMED. 	COSTS 	TO
BE PAID BY APPELLANT.
1 In any event, the record reflects that the court did, in fact, make a finding that the
crime was “domestically related.” It wrote as much on DeBerry’s probation order, which
DeBerry signed. Contrary to DeBerry’s arguments on appeal, the court was not required to
do anything further. See generally Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-233.