Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2010

 

Denied December 20, 2010

Allen, Jason v. State - Pet. Docket No. 356
Carlin v. Leahy-Carlin - Pet. Docket No. 170
Davis, Darryl v. State - Pet. Docket No. 395
Deblois, Richard Donald v. State - Pet. Docket No. 409
Francis, Robert Washington v. State - Pet. Docket No. 429
Grimes, Bobby v. State - Pet. Docket No. 318
Grimes, Brandon Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 275 (motion for reconsideration)
Houck, David Wayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 423
Johnson, Ja,es L. Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 411
Jones, Christopher v. State - Pet. Docket No. 416
Jones, Emmanuel L. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 426
Kanu v. Eight O'Clock Coffee - Pet. Docket No. 383 (motion for reconsideration; 2005 Term)
Moss v. Howell - Pet. Docket No. 274 (motion for reconsideration)
Rahimian v. Rimac - Pet. Docket No. 268 (motion for reconsideration)
Serabian v. Rose - Pet. Docket No. 422
Thomas, Vincent A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 288
Washington, Gary Brian v. State - Pet. Docket No. 239 (motion for reconsideration)
Woodard, Augustus C. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 362

 

Granted December 17, 2010

Atkins, Amardo Annier v. State - Case No. 110, Sept. Term 2010.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - WHETHER AN INSTRUCTION THAT THE STATE NEED NOT USE CERTAIN INVESTIGATIVE & SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES VIOLATED THE SIXTH & FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS & MD DECLARATION OF RIGHTS BY UNDERMINING THE DEFENSE’S LEGITIMATE STRATEGY & BOLSTERING THE STATE’S CASE?

Carter, Maurcie v. Huntington Title and Escrow, LLC - Case No. 116, Sept. Term 2010.

ISSUES - INSURANCE - (1) WHETHER THE MD INSURANCE CODE REQUIRES AN EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE PURSUING A CLAIM FOR MONEY HAD & RECEIVED TO RECOVER TITLE INSURANCE PREMIUMS CHARGED BY TITLE INSURERS THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF THE PREMIUM RATES APPROVED BY THE MD INSURANCE COMMISSIONER? (2) WHETHER A CLAIM FOR MONEY HAD & RECEIVED TO RECOVER TITLE INSURANCE PREMIUMS CHARGED BY TITLE INSURERS THAT WERE IN EXCESS OF THE PREMIUM RATES APPROVED BY THE MD INSURANCE COMMISSIONER IS A CAUSE OF ACTION INDEPENDENT OF THE INSURANCE CODE? (3) WHETHER A FALSE STATEMENT OF THE AMOUNT CHARGEABLE FOR TITLE INSURANCE ON A HUD-1 SETTLEMENT STATEMENT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE MISREPRESENTATION WHICH CAN SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION UNDER MD LAW?

Lupfer, Raymond Charles v. State - Case No. 109, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT PERMITTED THE STATE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT AFTER BEING ARRESTED, “MIRANDIZED,” & INFORMED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST PETITIONER, HE DID NOT MAKE A STATEMENT TO POLICE & ASK TO SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY?

Metropolitan Washington Orthopaedic Association Chartered, et al. v. Christina L. Cervieri - Case No. 111, Sept. Term 2010.

ISSUE - LABOR & EMPLOYMENT - AS A MATTER OF LAW, DOES A BONA FIDE DISPUTE EXIST BETWEEN EMPLOYEE & EMPLOYER WHEN A JURY AWARDS AN EMPLOYER A JUDGMENT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES RELATING TO THE EMPLOYEE’S WAGE CLAIM?

Moore, Khiry Montay v. State - Case No. 113, Sept. Term 2008.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE SUPPRESSION COURT PROPERLY CONCLUDE, GIVEN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING PETITIONER’S INTERROGATION, THAT PETITIONER’S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE WAS VOLUNTARY?

Parks, Debra v. Alpharma, Inc., et al. - Case No. 115, Sept. Term 2010.

ISSUES - COMMERCIAL LAW - (1) WAS IT ERROR FOR TRIAL COURT TO GRANT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS WRONGFUL DISCHARGE ACTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO REPORT APPELLEE’S MISCONDUCT “OUTSIDE THE COMPANY?” (2) IS APPELLANT’S WRONGFUL DISCHARGE ACTION BARRED BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PUTATIVE “WHISTLEBLOWER” REMEDY UNDER THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT?

Sanders, Oscar v. State - Case No. 108, Sept. Term 2010.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID TRIAL COURT ACT WITHIN ITS PROPER DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO ASK A VOIR DIRE QUESTION REQUESTED BY PETITIONER?

State of Maryland v. Perry Simms a/k/a/ Perry Sims - Case No. 112, Sept. Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ALIBI NOTICE, WHERE RESPONDENT’S DEFENSE AT TRIAL WAS A DE FACTO ALIBI DEFENSE, RESPONDENT NEVER WITHDREW HIS ALIBI NOTICE, THE ALIBI NOTICE WAS REDACTED TO ELIMINATE ALL NAMES BUT ONE, & RECORDINGS OF JAILHOUSE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS SUPPORTED AN INFERENCE THAT THE ALIBI NOTICE WAS WILLFULLY FALSE AS TO ONE PERSON BECAUSE THAT PERSON WAS IN A DIFFERENT CITY AT THE TIME OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ALIBI NOTICE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE, WHERE AN INFERENCE THAT THE ALIBI NOTICE WAS WILLFULLY FALSE AS TO ONE PERSON BECAUSE THAT PERSON WAS IN A DIFFERENT CITY AT THE TIME OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE INFERENCE BASED ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE?

Stephens, Lee E. v. State - Case No. 114, September Term 2010.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO DETERMINE IF APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE TO BE SENTENCED TO DEATH UNDER THE NEW MD DEATH PENALTY STATUTE?

Stevenson, Terry Shawn v. State - Case No. 106, Sept. Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) IS CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY, A DOUBLY INCHOATE CRIME, A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF A WAIVED CLAIM REGARDING THE LEGITIMACY OF A CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A CRIME?

Wilkerson, Derrick Tyrone v. State - Case No. 107, Sept. Term 2010.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHETHER TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT SUPPRESSING ALL OF PETITIONER’S STATEMENTS BECAUSE POLICE USED A PROHIBITED FORM OF THE “TWO-STEP” TECHNIQUE TO CIRCUMVENT MIRANDA? (2) WHETHER THE DELIBERATENESS INQUIRY UNDER MISSOURI V. SEIBERT, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) REQUIRES ONLY THAT POLICE ADMIT THEIR DELIBERATE USE OF THE PROHIBITED “TWO-STEP” INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE? (3) WHETHER MISSOURI V. SEIBERT APPLIES TO BOTH EXCULPATORY & INCULPATORY STATEMENTS? (4) WHETHER TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO SUPPRESS PETITIONER’S STATEMENTS TO POLICE BECAUSE HE NEITHER KNOWINGLY NOR VOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS? (5) DID PETITIONER FAIL TO PRESERVE HIS CLAIM THAT POLICE OFFICERS DELIBERATELY USED THE TWO-STEP “QUESTION FIRST” INTERROGATION METHOD PROHIBITED BY MISSOURI V. SEIBERT?