In State v. Flansburg, 345 Md. 694, 694 A.2d 462 (1997), the Court addressed whether the respondent, Flansburg, had a right under Maryland law to the effective assistance of counsel in connection with a motion for modification of the sentence imposed at a probation revocation proceeding pursuant to Md. Rule 4-345 (b). Flansburg, 345 Md. at 696. The Court in Flansburg considered the predecessor statute to CP 16-204 -- Md. Code (1957, 1997 Repl. Vol.) Article 27A, 4(b). Flansburg, 345 Md. at 699-703. In 1985, Flansburg pleaded guilty to a second degree sex offense and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, with four years suspended, to be followed by five years probation. Id. In 1990, while on probation, Flansburg was convicted of battery and second degree murder. Id. Subsequently, and while represented by the Office of the Public Defender, Flansburg's probation was revoked and the previously suspended portion of his prior sentence was reimposed, to be served consecutively to a fifteen year sentence imposed for the murder conviction. Id. Following revocation of probation, Flansburg made two timely written requests that his attorney file a motion for modification of sentence pursuant to Md. Rule 4-345(b). Flansburg, 345 Md. at 696. That provision, since recodified as Md. Rule 4-345(e), permits a court to modify a sentence upon motion filed within 90 days after its imposition. See Md. Rule 4-345. Flansburg's attorney failed to timely file the motions, and Flansburg thereafter filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Flansburg, 345 Md. at 697. The Court of Appeals began its discussion by assuming, arguendo, that neither the federal right to effective assistance of counsel or the Maryland Declaration of Rights applied to a motion to modify a sentence reimposed upon a revocation of probation. Id. at 698-99. Nevertheless, the Court found such a right under Maryland statutory provisions, including the Public Defender Act. Flansburg, 345 Md. at 699. After setting forth the pertinent statutory language, the Court stated: "As the statutory language demonstrates, the right to counsel under the Public Defender Act is significantly broader than the constitutional right to counsel. Criminal proceedings constitutionally requiring the presence of counsel constitute only one of the five categories of required representation set forth in the Public Defender Act." Id. at 700. In State v. Flansburg, following a probation revocation, Flansburg's attorney failed to file a motion under Maryland Rule 4-345(b) for modification of his sentence, notwithstanding Flansburg's request. Flansburg later filed a petition for post conviction relief, claiming that his attorney's failure to file a motion for modification of sentence had deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. The circuit court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act did not permit such challenges. The Court granted Flansburg's application for leave to appeal and reversed, concluding that Flansburg's challenge to the adequacy of his counsel at and after the probation revocation proceeding was cognizable under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act. Flansburg v. State, 103 Md. App. 394, 653 A.2d 966 (1995). The Court of Appeals granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari, State v. Flansburg, 339 Md. 232, 661 A.2d 733 (1995), and affirmed our judgment, 345 Md. 694, 694 A.2d 462 (1997). At the outset, the Court of Appeals noted that the case presented two issues: whether the respondent John Flansburg had a right to the effective assistance of counsel with regard to a motion under Maryland Rule 4-345(b) for modification of the sentence reimposed at a probation revocation proceeding; whether his claim that he had such right to the effective assistance of counsel is cognizable under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. (345 Md. at 696.) After discussing the applicable law, the Court concluded that "Flansburg's claim was cognizable under the Post Conviction Procedure Act. Counsel's failure to abide by his client's wishes resulted in Flansburg's loss of any opportunity to have a reconsideration of sentence hearing. Flansburg expressly instructed his public defender to file a motion for reconsideration, and based on the Public Defender Act and the rules, Flansburg had a right to expect that his request would be honored. The failure to follow a client's directions to file a motion, when statutory provisions and rules expressly extend representation to such a motion, is a ground for the post conviction remedy of permission to file a belated motion for reconsideration of sentence." (345 Md. at 705.)