A sentencing judge's misapprehension of the maximum penalty does not automatically vitiate the sentencing discretion; the error must be material and the judge must have been 'steered by' the wrong maximum. Where the difference between the true and assumed maximum is relatively small (20 vs 25 years) and the sentencing remarks show no dependence on the specific maximum, the error is immaterial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.