broken with impunity or without consequence.” Id. at 482, 845 A.2d 1215. Thus, in our view, the Court in Tweedy was looking at the issue under the facts of the case before it, where appearance was not a condition of the plea agreement, as it was here. Additionally, the Court was addressing whether a judge could increase the sentence, when an increase in sentence for non-appearance was not explained to the defendant before the judge accepted the plea. Here, the court is merely vacating the sentence so neither party obtains any benefit from the original bargain. Finally, Falero cited several cases where the Court of Appeals held that a court could not change the sentencing terms after accepting a defendant’s plea. See Matthews v. State, 424 Md. 503, 524-26, 36 A.3d 499 (2012) (<HOLDING>); Baines, 416 Md. at 607-08, 7 A.3d 578
holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable holding that a court could not agree to impose a sentence within the guidelines but then give a sentence that suspended all but an amount within the guidelines because a reasonable defendant would believe that within the guidelines included suspended time holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable