Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2010

 

Granted September 28, 2010

Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Association and Eric N. Bernard v. Montgomery County Board of Elections and Montgomery County, Maryland - Case No. 86, September Term 2010. (Petition Granted and limited to one issue. Cross-Petition denied)

 

Denied September 20, 2010

Acosta-Ortega, Jose Israel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 293
Andrulonis v. Reilly - Pet. Docket No. 282
Anvari v. Prince George's Council - Pet. Docket No. 232
Benitez, Victoriano v. State - Pet. Dokcet No. 42 (motion for reconsideration)
Basset, Jose Antonio v. State - Pet. Docket No. 287
Binogol v. Bonilla - Pet. Docket No. 238
Bogues, Eric v. State - Pet. Docket No. 251
Braxton, Arnold Richard v. State - Pet. Docket No. 285
Campbell, Rohan M. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 212
Carter, Victor v. State - Pet. Docket No. 263
Campbell, Raimon Saint John v. State - Pet. Docket No. 205 and cross-petition denied
Cherry, James William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 172
Clipper v. Sheet - Pet. Docket No. 271
Cortez, Carlos Miguel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 283
Dachman v. Azhdam - Pet. Docket No.276
Davenport, Anthony Lee v. State - Pet. Docket No. 272
Daye, Devin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 245
Graney v. Graney - Pet. Docket No. 284
Grimes, Brandon Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 275
Hall, John Edward Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 294
Hall, Lorenzo D. Sr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 211
Hammonds, Jerome D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 278
Hill, Chauncey A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 279
Horton, Anthony Julius v. State - Pet Docket No. 236
Hubbard v. Denison Landscaping - Pet. Docket No. 256
Hubbel v. Fire/Police Retirement - Pet. Docket No. 250
In the Matter of C. D. Randolph - Pet. Docket No. 258
Johnson, Andre v. State - Pet. Docket No. 173
Johnson, Scott v. State - Pet. Docket No. 234
Johnson v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Dokcet No. 266
Kilgore v. Corona - Pet. Docket No. 208
Mathis, George Woodrow v. State - Pet. Docket No. 277
Midsize Construction v. Grace - Pet. Docket No. 291
Miller, David Lee v. State - Pet. Docket No. 171
Mills, Christopher v. State - Pet. Docket No. 246
Monroe, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 295
Moss v. Howell - Pet. Docket No. 274
Outlaw, Levon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 230
Parris, John v. State - Pet. Docket No. 145
Pearson, Davon v. State - Pet. Docket No.207
Price v. Upper Chesapeake Health - Pet. Docket No. 243
Prince, James Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 231
Rahimian v. Rimac - Pet. Docket No. 268
Randolph, Joe Henry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 260 and cross-petition denied
Ristick, John Larry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 241
Seifert v. Sayres - Pet. Docket No. 237
Simms, David E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 240
Smith, Gerrald B. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 180
Smith, Patrick v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 253
Smith, Patrick v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 254
Smith, Patrick v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 257
Smith, Patrick v. Anne Arundel County - Pet. Docket No. 281
Smith, Patrick v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 286
Smith, Patrick Darnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 53 (motion for reconsideration)
Smith, Patrick Darnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 102 (motion for reconsideration)
Smith, Patrick Darnell v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 289
Walker v. Wilson - Pet. Docket No. 118
Washington, Gary Brian v. State - Pet. Docket No. 239
Williams, Tyrone Craig v. State - Pet. Docket No. 141
Witherspoon v. Hammond - Pet. Docket No. 98

 

Granted September 17, 2010

Ace American Insurance Company, et al. v. Steven L. Williams, et al / Steven L. Williams, et al. v. William C. Work, et al. - Case No. 75, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - (1) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO FINAL JUDGMENT IN WILLIAMS I BECAUSE STEVEN & MICHAEL WERE NOT JOINED IN THAT CASE UNDER RULE 15-1001? (2) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN INTERPRETING AND APPLYING WALKER IN CONCLUDING THERE WAS NO FINAL JUDGMENT IN WILLIAMS I? (3) WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING ACE RECOVERY OF LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED IN WILLIAMS II WHERE THE FILING OF WILLIAMS I WAS IN BAD FAITH AND WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION, THEREBY CONDONING THE CONDUCT OF THE ATTORNEY WHO FILED BOTH CASES?

Altadis U.S.A., Inc., et al. v. Prince George's County, Maryland, et al. - Case No. 85, September Term, 2010.

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE COUNTY LAW IS A “LOCAL LAW” WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. XI-A & THEREFORE CONSTITUTIONAL, IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC & OTHER EFFECTS OF THE COUNTY LAW BEYOND THE COUNTY & THE FACT THAT IT ADDRESSES MATTERS OF SIGNIFICANT INTEREST BEYOND THE COUNTY? (2) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE COUNTY LAW IS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW, IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF 2010 MD. LAWS, CH. 388, & OTHER LAWS & ACTIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY? (3) IS PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY ORDINANCE CB-6-2009 WHICH RESTRICTS PACKAGING & PRICING OF CIGARS VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION COMPONENT OF ART. 24 OF THE MARYLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS? (4) IS PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY ORDINANCE CB-6-2099 VOID FOR VAGUENESS? (5) DOES PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY ORDINANCE CB-6-2009 VIOLATE DUE PROCESS UNDER ART. 24 OF THE MD DECLARATION OF RIGHTS?

Ballard, Warren Lee v. State - Case No. 73, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER PETITIONER’S STATEMENTS MADE DURING HIS CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AFTER HE INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED?

Beads, Cyrus Lee and Joseph Omar Smith v. State - Case No. 83, September Term 2101. Petition filed by the Public Defender on behalf of the petitioner and the conditional crss-petition granted. Petition filed by Cyrus Lee Beads, pro-se is denied.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY UPHOLD THE TRIAL COURT’S EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION REGARDING THE STATE’S REMARKS IN CLOSING ARGUMENT? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY FIND THAT ANY ERROR IN FAILING TO ADVISE THE PARTIES ABOUT JURY NOTE #1 OR TO EXPRESSLY RESPOND TO NOTE #1 WAS HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BASED ON THE COURT’S RESPONSE TO JURY NOTE #2? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY UPHOLD THE TRIAL COURT’S EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL? (4) SHOULD THIS COURT REAFFIRM ITS HOLDING THAT WHERE ONE CO-DEFENDANT OBJECTS TO REMARKS IN CLOSING ARGUMENT, BUT THE OTHER DOES NOT, THE LATTER GENERALLY HAS NOT PRESERVED THE CLAIM FOR APPELLATE REVIEW?

C&M Builders, LLC v. Kelly Lynn Strub - Case No. 77, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - LABOR & EMPLOYMENT - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT AN EMPLOYER OWES A DUTY UNDER MOSHA AFTER THE EMPLOYER HAS LEFT THE WORK SITE & HAS NO CONTROL OVER WORK SITE CONDITIONS TO PROVIDE A SAFE WORKPLACE TO SOMEONE NOT HIS EMPLOYER? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT WHERE A PERSON IS AWARE OF AN OBVIOUS RISK OF FALLING & VOLUNTARILY EXPOSES HIMSELF TO THAT RISK & FALLS TO HIS DEATH THAT THE INABILITY TO SHOW HOW HE FELL MAKES ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE JURY?

Evans, Leroy, Jr. v. State - Case No. 72, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN SENTENCING PETITIONER FOR OBLITERATING THE SERIAL NUMBER ON A FIREARM WHERE THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT PROVIDED A PENALTY FOR THAT OFFENSE?

Griffin, Antoine Levar v. State - Case No. 74, September Term 2010. Petition and cross-petition both granted.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHAT EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED TO AUTHENTICATE A PRINTOUT FROM A SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ADMITTING WHAT THE STATE CLAIMED WAS A PRINTOUT FROM PETITIONER’S GIRLFRIEND’S MYSPACE PROFILE CONTAINING HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL CONTENT WITHOUT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATING THE MATERIAL AS HAVING BEEN POSTED BY PETITIONER’S GIRLFRIEND? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER FROM THE ADMISSION OF THE MYSPACE PAGE DID NOT OUTWEIGH ITS PROBATIVE VALUE? (4) IS PETITIONER’S CHALLENGE TO THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW?

Hansen, Jerry P. v. City of Laurel, Maryland - Case No. 78, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - TORTS - WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING A CITY ADMINISTRATOR IS NOT A PROPER RECIPIENT OR “CORPORATE AUTHORITY OF THE DEFENDANT LOCAL GOVERNMENT” PURSUANT TO CJ SECTION 5-304(c)(4)?

Harris, Lamar Cornelius v. State - Case No. 79, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - SHOULD THIS COURT ADOPT THE EXCEPTION TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT REQUIREMENT FOR APPEALABILITY RECOGNIZED IN PERLMAN V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417 (1918) AND IF SO, WERE THE TRIAL COURT’S INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS AUTHORIZING DISCLOSURE OF TREATMENT RECORDS & TESTIMONY BY THE TREATING PHYSICIAN THAT ARE ALLEGEDLY PROTECTED BY THE PATIENT-THERAPIST PRIVILEGE IMMEDIATELY APPEALABLE (1) UNDER THAT DOCTRINE? (2) UNDER THE COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE?

Montgomery County, Maryland, et al. v. Edward Shropshire, et al. - Case No. 84, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - (1) DOES THE MD PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT, MD. CODE ANN. STATE GOV’T SEC. 10-616(i) REQUIRE THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS TO DENY THE MONT. CO. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACCESS TO RECORDS OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF WHETHER THE APPELLEES VIOLATED DEPARTMENT WORK RULES? (2) ARE RECORDS OF A POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL INVESTIGATION OF THE APPELLEES PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE TO MONT. CO. INSPECTOR GENERAL UNDER MD. CODE ANN., STATE GOV’T SEC. 10-615 (l) AS RECORDS MADE CONFIDENTIAL BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS, MD. CODE ANN., PUBLIC SAFETY SEC. 3-104(n)?

Motor Vehicle Administration v. Ronald William Lipella - Case No. 80, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - TRANSPORTATION - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT FOUND THAT UNDER MD CODE ANN. TRANSP. II, SEC. 16-205.1 THE SWORN STATEMENT OF REASONABLE GROUNDS BY AN OFFICER MUST INCLUDE A REASON FOR CONDUCTING A STOP OF THE DRIVER’S VEHICLE?

Noor, Nooria v. Centreville National Bank, et al. - Case No. 82, September Term 2009. Petition and cross-petition both granted.

ISSUES - REAL PROPERTY - (1) WHETHER PETITIONER HAD A RIGHT TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE A HOME PRIOR TO THE DOCKETING OF A CONFESSED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SELLER WHERE ALL CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSING UNDER THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE DOCKETING OF THE JUDGMENT? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE ISSUE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION WAS PROPERLY RAISED BY PETITIONER AND DECIDED BY THE TRIAL COURT? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM THAT RESPONDENT’S LIEN IS EQUITABLY SUBROGATED TO A LIEN OF $348,000 BECAUSE THE TRANSFER WAS ARM’S LENGTH & OTHER EQUITIES JUSTIFIED THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL?

State v. Jeffrey Edward Allen - Case No. 76, September Term 2010. Petition and cross-petition both granted.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WERE THE AFFIRMED FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW IN RESPONDENT’S FIRST TRIAL ENTITLED TO EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT IN HIS RETRIAL ON THE REMAINING ISSUE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT UPON RETRIAL EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT’S ARMED ROBBERY CONVICTION MAY BE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE OF THE FELONY MURDER CHARGE IF THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINES THAT THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE RISK OF UNFAIR PREJUDICE?

State v. Demetius Daughtry - Case No. 81, September Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID BRADSHAW V. STUMPF, 545 U.S. 175 (2007) ELIMINATE THE LONG-STANDING PRESUMPTION SET FORTH IN HENDERSON V. MORGAN, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) THAT “EVEN WITHOUT ...[AN] EXPRESS REPRESENTATION” BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE TO WHICH A DEFENDANT ENTERS A PLEA OF GUILTY “HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO” THE DEFENDANT “IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO PRESUME THAT IN MOST CASES DEFENSE COUNSEL ROUTINELY EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO GIVE THE ACCUSED NOTICE OF THE WHAT HE IS BEING ASKED TO ADMIT”? (2) IF THE HENDERSON PRESUMPTION IS NO LONGER VIABLE, SHOULD CSA OPINIONS IN ABRAMS BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE APPLICATION?