Muhammad v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the multiplicity challenge to Muhammad’s two Criminal Mischief convictions was moot because the State entered a nolle prosequi on one charge. Nevertheless, it vacated the entire sentencing order because one Criminal Mischief charge had been dismissed and the parties agreed that Muhammad’s PFBPP sentence was based on an erroneous ten-year minimum mandatory term. The Court remanded for a new sentencing hearing, also directing the Superior Court’s attention to apparent errors involving the classification and maximum sentences for Resisting Arrest and Criminal Mischief.