Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2009

 

Denied November 13, 2009

Alvarado v. Happi - Pet. Docket No. 153
Awah v. Auto Barn - Pet. Docket No. 507*
Beins v. Hoppe - Pet. Docket No. 279
Brinkley, Joseph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 308
Byrd, In the Matter of Robert - Pet. Docket No. 306
Clark v. SecureCare - Pet. Docket No. 285
Clingerman v. Holy Cross Hospital - Pet. Docket No. 290
Coit, Vernon Birdell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 293
Crawford, Ty'Ree v. State - Pet. Docket No. 203 (on motion for reconsideration)
Crosby, Robert A. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 318
Curtis, Michael B. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 325
Drummond, Kelvin L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 326
Farber v. Greenberg - Pet. Docket No. 317
Fogle, Ronald J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 299
Gerald, Ronald v. State - Pet. Docket No. 311
Green v. Conrey - Pet. Docket No. 185
Griffith v. Tressel - Pet. Docket No. 305
Hamilton, David Lee v. State - Pet. Docket No. 217
Hickmond, Lester v. State - Pet. Docket No. 303
Hill, Chauncey A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 316
Howard v. U.S. National Bank - Pet. Docket No. 335
Hutt, Jamar Duron v. State - Pet. Docket No. 309
In Re: Nathan A. - Pet. Docket No. 334
Johnson v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 221
Kim v. Long Fence - Pet. Docket No. 314
Kline v. Knight - Pet. Docket No. 298
Krause, Joseph Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 332
Longo v. Montgomery County - Pet. Docket No. 292
Maith, Delano v. State - Pet. Docket No. 278
Marsh v. Cave - Pet. Docket 296
McMillion, Corey A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 300
Miles, Rodney J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 321
Miller, Mark D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 323
Outten, Adrian L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 307
Peamon v. H&S - Pet. Docket No. 319
Presco, Ronald J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 315
Rippeon, Michael W. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 322
Sapia v. Del Mar's Recap - Pet. Docket No. 324
Sayyd v. Umar - Pet. Docket No. 282
Scott, Sean v. State - Pet. Docket No. 231
Scott, Warren L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 333
Shelton, Latasha M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 312
Shifflett, Daniel J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 271
Silverberg v. Bourbon - Pet. Docket No. 320
Star Hotels v. G&R - Pet. Docket No. 248
State v. John W. Bunting - Pet. Docket No. 246 (and cross-petition - both granted)
Tate, Rashaad G. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 330
Taylor, Nathan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 301
Thomas, Tyrone D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 310
Wesley, Gary A. Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 302
White, v. Bingham - Pet. Docket No. 380
Williams, Charles E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 297
Williams, Christopher I. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 261
Williams v. Bell - Pet. Docket No. 226
Williams v. Investors Real Estate - Pet. Docket No. 227

 

* September Term 2008

 

Granted November 12, 2009

Curtis Wendell Alston v. State - Case No. 121, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES THE TRIAL COURT LACK JURISDICTION TO REOPEN A POST CONVICTION CASE TO DENY POST CONVICTION RELIEF, WHETHER SUA SPONTE OR ON TIME-BARRED MOTION OF THE STATE, AFTER HAVING GRANTED POST CONVICTION RELIEF IN THE FORM OF A NEW TRIAL SIX MONTHS EARLIER?

Jamal Charles and Dwayne Drake v. State of Maryland - Case No. 110, September Term 2009. (Petition granted to limited issue and cross-petition denied).

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES A JUDGE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT SUMMATION AND PROHIBIT AN ATTORNEY FROM PUTTING LAW, GIVEN BY THE JUDGE IN INSTRUCTION, INTO CONTEXT AS WARRANTED BY THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF A CASE?

Dwayne Drake and Jamal Charles v. State - Case No. 114, September Term 2009. (Petitio granted to limited issues and cross-petition denied).

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT UNDULY RESTRICT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CLOSING ARGUMENT BY PROHIBITING PLACING THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER STANDARDS OF PROOF? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ASKING THE JURY ON VOIR DIRE WHETHER THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT IN THE ABSENCE OF “SCIENTIFIC” EVIDENCE ?

Ashanti Cost v. State - Case No. 116, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON SPOILATION BECAUSE SUCH AN INSTRUCTION IS NEVER REQUIRED IN CRIMINAL CASES? (2) DID THE STATE VIOLATE ITS OBLIGATION UNDER BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) WHEN IT FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT THE VICTIM HAD A HISTORY OF SELF-INFLICTED SUPERFICIAL STAB WOUNDS WHILE IN STATE CUSTODY?

Sean Anthony Dove v. State - Case No. 118, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING “HARMLESS ERROR” COULD BE APPLIED TO SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS OF MD. RULE 4-342(d)? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING HARMLESS THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF MD. RULE 4-342(d), WHERE THAT EVIDENCE WAS USED BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY AND PROVIDED THE BASIS FOR AN EXPERT WITNESS’ OPINION AND TESTIMONY?

Christian Darrell Lee v. State - Case No. 115, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHETHER INTERROGATING OFFICER MADE A PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY, VIOLATED PROTECTIONS OF MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, AND INDUCED AN INVOLUNTARY STATEMENT WHEN, AN HOUR INTO INTERROGATION IN WHICH PETITIONER CONTINUALLY DENIED INVOLVEMENT IN SHOOTING, THE OFFICER STATED: “THIS IS BETWEEN YOU AND ME, BUD. ONLY YOU AND ME HERE, ALL RIGHT? ALL RIGHT?” (2) WHETHER WHERE THE DELIBERATING JURY ASKED, “IN THE CASE OF FELONY MURDER ANYONE PRESENT IS AS GUILTY AS THE PERSON WHO PERSONALLY COMMITS THE MURDER. IN THE CASE OF FELONY MURDER, DOES THE SAME HOLD TRUE,”THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN MERELY RESPONDING, “[T]HE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS CONTAINED IN THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED TO YOU”?

Ricky Savoy v. State - Case No. 120, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED TO THE JURY AT PETITIONER’S TRIAL, WHICH DEFINED THE STANDARD FOR BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS “CERTAINTY BASED UPON CONVINCING GROUNDS OF PROBABILITY,” DID NOT CONSTITUTE A STRUCTURAL ERROR NOR VIOLATE PETITIONER’S SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE PLAIN ERROR IN REASONABLE DOUBT JURY INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH DEFINED THE STANDARD FOR REASONABLE DOUBT AS “CERTAINTY BASED UPON CONVINCING GROUNDS OF PROBABILITY?”

W. M. Schlosser Co., et al. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, et al. - Case No. 112, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT A STATUTORY EMPLOYER MUST PAY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TO ITS STATUTORY EMPLOYEE FOR AN INJURY HE SUFFERED WHILE PERFORMING WORK FOR THE STATUTORY EMPLOYER?

State of Maryland Centrial Collection Unit v. Laverne Miller - Case No. 117, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - TRANSPORTATION - (1) DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR IN PROVIDING APPELLATE RELIEF WHEN APPELLANT FAILED TO FILE THE REQUIRED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT SETTING FORTH THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW AND THE GROUNDS AND AUTHORITIES FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT, DID NOT PROPERLY MAKE THE REQUIRED REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, AND DID NOT OTHERWISE ASSERT ANY BASIS FROM WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED CLEAR ERROR? (2) DID LOWER COURT IMPERMISSIBLY EXCEED THE SCOPE OF REVIEW IN AN APPEAL ON THE RECORD FROM DISTRICT COURT BY OPENING THE RECORD TO CONSIDER NEW ARGUMENTS NOT RAISED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND RECEIVED ADDITIONAL WITNESS TESTIMONY? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN VACATING THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE NOTHING ASSERTED BY THE AUTOMOBILE OWNER WOULD EXCUSE RESPONDENT FROM THE STRICT LIABILITY IMPOSED BY MD. CODE ANN., TRANSP. II SECTION 17-106, AS CONSTRUED IN STATE OF MARYLAND CENTRAL COLLECTION UNIT v. JORDAN, 405 Md. 420 (2008)?


Merle Unger v. State - Case No. 111, September Term 2009.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDE INEFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION BY FAILING TO OBJECT TO “ADVISORY ONLY” JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE GIVEN AT PETITIONER’S TRIAL? (2) DID DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BY NOT OBJECTING TO TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE A REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTION AFTER CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE?

University of Maryland Medical System Corporation v. Gloria A. Rice, et al. - Case No. 113, September Term 2009. (Petition and cross-petition both granted).

ISSUES - STATUTORY - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN PREMISING ITS OPINION ON A CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND THAT WAS UNPRESERVED BY RESPONDENTS IN THE TRIAL COURT AND IN DISREGARDING THE SOLE ISSUE PRESERVED BY RESPONDENTS IN THE TRIAL COURT? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ITS ANALYSIS OF THE VESTED RIGHTS DOCTRINE BY HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS’ CLAIMS WERE “SURVIVING ON LIFE SUPPORT” DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL ON WHICH RESPONDENTS DEFAULTED WITHOUT FILING A BRIEF, WHERE THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ISSUED MONTHS BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ENACTED A STATUTE ABROGATING UMMS’S RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM STALE CLAIMS? (3) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE SECOND ACTION BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THAT THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD HAD NOT BEEN EQUITABLY AND/OR STATUTORILY TOLLED BY THE FIRST ACTION UNDER THESE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES?

Dameek Yearby v. State - Case No. 119, September Term 2009.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE STATE COMMIT A BRADY VIOLATION BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE THE FACTS THAT POLICE HAD DEVELOPED OTHER SUSPECTS WITH RESPECT TO A SERIES OF ROBBERIES THAT HAPPENED IN SAME AREA AND DURING SAME TIME FRAME AS ROBBERY OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS ACCUSED, AND THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE SUSPECTS RESEMBLED PETITIONER?