Unless a defendant timely objects that the court relied upon impermissible sentencing considerations, such claim is waived. Reiger v. State, 170 Md.App. 693, 70001 (2006), cert. denied, 397 Md. 397 (2007); Rudder v. State, 181 Md.App. 426, 476 (2008). Because Mr. Broadus raised no objection during or after the circuit court's announcement of sentence, nothing is preserved for our review.
Id. To assist in our analysis, we turn to Reiger v. State, 170 Md. App. 693 (2006). In Reiger, this Court addressed whether Reiger had waived his opportunity for appellate review of the sentencing court's reliance on impermissible factors at sentencing by not objecting to that reliance.
Rather, according to the State, Martin “challenged the admission of the letter on authentication grounds” and “objected to the State's request that the sentencing hearing be postponed so it could authenticate the letter” but “did not object to the letter being considered by the court.” Invoking Reiger v. State, 170 Md.App. 693, 700, 908 A.2d 124 (2006), a case which held that, in the absence of a contemporaneous objection, a defendant may not claim, on appeal, that a court considered improper evidence or impermissible factors when imposing sentence, the State insists that Martin “has given up any right to argue on appeal that the sentencing judge was motivated by impermissible considerations.” At the sentencing hearing, Thomas Laue, an administrator at the Jennifer Road Detention Center in Anne Arundel County, where Martin was incarcerated while awaiting imposition of sentence, testified that, in performing his duty to screen mail to and from inmates, he noticed an unusual piece of mail that Martin was attempting to send.
This Court held that the defendant waived his claim by failing to object at sentencing on the grounds that the trial court failed to consider defendant's ability to pay. Brecker, 304 Md. at 42, 497 A.2d at 481–82 (“[T]he failure to make a timely objection constitutes a waiver of that particular issue and, as a result, we may not consider it.”). See also Reiger v. State, 170 Md.App. 693, 908 A.2d 124 (2006) (involving a challenge to a sentence based upon a claim of impermissible sentencing considerations, where no objection had been made during the sentencing proceedings). In Reiger v. State, the Court of Special Appeals noted that:
This Court held that the defendant waived his claim by failing to object at sentencing on the grounds that the trial court failed to consider defendant's ability to pay. Brecker, 304 Md. at 42, 497 A.2d at 481-82 ("[T]he failure to make a timely objection constitutes a waiver of that particular issue and, as a result, we may not consider it."). See also Reiger v. State, 170 Md. App. 693, 908 A.2d 124 (2006) (involving a challenge to a sentence based upon a claim of impermissible sentencing considerations, where no objection had been made during the sentencing proceedings). In Reiger v. State, the Court of Special Appeals noted that:
As for Wilkins's claim that the circuit court violated Rule 4-342(f) because it failed to state its reasons on the record, we note that defense counsel did not raise this issue at sentencing. Therefore, it is not preserved, and we shall not address it.See , e.g. , Reiger v. State , 170 Md. App. 693, 698-702, 908 A.2d 124 (2006) (holding that the failure to object at sentencing results in waiver of a claim that a court had relied upon improper considerations in imposing sentence). We note in passing that Rule 4-342(f) contains mandatory language.
As this Court has reemphasized: In Reiger v. State, 170 Md. App. 693, 700, 908 A.2d 124 (2006), we observed that such objections should be brought to the attention of thesentencing judge while there is an opportunity to clarify the court's motivations:
We are not similarly moved to exercise our discretion to excuse appellant's failure to raise any objection in the circuit court in response to the sentencing judge's comments. In Reiger v. State, 170 Md. App. 693 (2006), we observed that such objections should be brought to the attention of the sentencing judge while there is an opportunity to clarify the court's motivations:When, as in this case, a judge's statement from the bench about the reasons for the sentence gives rise to the claim of impermissible sentencing considerations, defense counsel has good reason to speak up. A timely objection serves an important purpose in this context.
We are not similarly moved to exercise our discretion to excuse appellant's failure to raise any objection in the circuit court in response to the sentencing judge's comments. In Reiger v. State, 170 Md.App. 693, 700, 908 A.2d 124 (2006), we observed that such objections should be brought to the attention of the sentencing judge while there is an opportunity to clarify the court's motivations:When, as in this case, a judge's statement from the bench about the reasons for the sentence gives rise to the claim of impermissible sentencing considerations, defense counsel has good reason to speak up. A timely objection serves an important purpose in this context.
In so holding, we stated: "When a court orders a defendant to make restitution to a crime victim, and the defendant believes that the court either fails to inquire into his ability to pay or errs in determining his ability to pay, the defendant must make a timely objection to the order, else the issue is waived." Id. at 566 (emphasis added) (citing Reiger v. State, 170 Md. App. 693, 699-701 (2006)). We reach the same conclusion here.