Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2011

 

Denied October 25, 2011

Abel, Treve Antonio v. State - Pet. Docket No. 267
Alvarez, Bruman Stalin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 233
Bourne v. Parker - Pet. Docket No. 230
Brisbane, Leo Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 212
Claybrooks, William J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 276
Cobb, Freddie Lee v. State - Pet. Docket No. 205
Cotter, Brian Matthew v. State - Pet. Docket No. 275
Covington, Donnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 225
Crosby v. Wolfe - Pet. Docket No. 215
Davis v. Board of Physicians - Pet. Docket No. 365
Dejesus, William Alexander v. State - Pet. Docket No. 227
Diab v. Pilgrim Properties - Pet. Docket No. 244
Dotson v. Dotson - Pet. Docket No. 262
Dotson v. Dotson - Pet. Docket No. 268
Evans v. Episcopal - Pet. Docket 224
Ford, Tony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 222
Freeland v. Baltimore County - Pet. Docket No. 221
Gibson v. Haulsee - Pet. Docket No. 122
Green v. BHP - Pet. Docket No. 226
Guion v. Archstone - Pet. Docket No. 265
Gwaltney-Bey, Darryl M. v. State - Pet. Docket 214
Harden, Russell Kelscoe v. State - Pet. Docket No. 177
Harris, Jermaine v. State - Pet. Docket No. 258
Hill v. Horning - Pet. Docket No. 87 (motion for reconsideration)
Imes, Gregory Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 219
In Re: Adoption of Sandoria M. - Pet. Docket No. 217
In Re: Daeshawn E. - Pet. Docket No. 346
Jackson, Lance Ramon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 216
Jackson v. Ray's Plumbing - Pet. Docket No. 129
King v. Housing Authority - Pet. Docket No. 302
LaFollette, In the Matter of Alysha M. - Pet. Docket No. 261
Lewis v. MVA - Pet. Docket No. 218
Lindsey, Fernando Arturu v. State - Pet. Docket No. 19 (motion for reconsideration)
Mackall, Jerome v. State - Pet. Docket No. 245
Manley, Larry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 208
Martin, Michael Paul v. State - Pet. Docket No. 33
McLaughlin-Cox v. Parole Commission - Pet. Docket No. 242
Mirijafary v. Springfield - Pet. Docket No. 228
Morgan, Norman William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 243
Neal, Adam Isaih v. State - Pet. Docket No. 260
Nelson v. Dept. of Health - Pet. Docket No. 565* (motion for reconsideration)
Nunez v. Mammadova - Pet. Docket No. 237
Olowofoyeku, Ayontunji F. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 210
Pardes v. Harwood - Pet. Docket No. 247
Phifer v. Dept. of Health - Pet. Docket No. 253
Rainey, Brian v. State - Pet. Docket No. 255
Ray, In the Matter of Benn - Pet. Docket No. 238
Savage, Octavius A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 118
Schafler v. Abdul-Malek - Pet. Docket No. 240
Sealing v. Agricultural Fair - Pet. Docket No. 248
Shultz, Randy T. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 223
Scott v. Seidelman - Pet. Docket No. 194
Smith v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 232
Smith v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 254
Smith, Patrick Darnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 246
Smith, Patrick Darnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 271
Smith, Patrick Darnell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 272
Strickland, Donovan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 241 and cross-petition
Strickland v. RRR - Pet. Docket No. 104 (motion for reconsideration)
Tuell, Andrew Douglas v. State - Pet. Docket No. 90
Waters, Robert Leon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 554**
Williams v. Goudy - Pet. Docket No. 213
Williams, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 211
Wilson v. Riverdale Park - Pet. Docket No. 234

 

Granted October 24, 2011

Black, Ocie L. Jr. v. State - Case No. 73, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES A JURY NOTE WITH NO DATE OR TIME STAMP FOUND IN THE APPELLATE RECORD ESTABLISH THAT THE TRIAL COURT RECEIVED THE JURY COMMUNICATION AT ISSUE IN ORDER TO TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENTS OF MD. RULE 4-326(d)?

Maryland State Board of Elections, et al. v. Libertarian Party of Maryland, et al. - Case No. 79, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - ELECTION LAW - (1) DOES MD STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS (MSBE) CURRENT STANDARDS FOR REVIEWING & VALIDATING PETITION SIGNATURES APPROPRIATELY IMPLEMENT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 6-203 OF THE ELECTION LAW ART. OF THE ANN. CODE OF MD AS INTERPRETED IN THE FIRE-RESCUE DECISION OF THIS COURT? (2) DOES THE SIGNATURE VALIDATION STANDARD ARTICULATED IN FIRE-RESCUE APPLY UNIFORMLY TO VALIDATION OF PETITION SIGNATURES BOTH IN THE REFERENDUM CONTEXT AND IN OTHER CONTEXTS INCLUDING NEW PARTY PETITIONS? (3) DOES THE MSBE APPROPRIATELY REFUSE TO VALIDATE DUPLICATE OR MULTIPLE SIGNATURES OF PERSONS WHO ALREADY HAVE SIGNED A PETITION?

Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation v. Board of Education of Baltimore County - Case No. 71, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - EDUCATION - IS THE “GOODS” AND “COMMODITIES” EXCEPTION TO PUBLIC BIDDING REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN MD. CODE ANN., EDUC. SEC. 5-112 APPLICABLE TO THE PROCUREMENT OF ROOFING REPLACEMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS WHERE THE COST IS MORE THAN $25,000?

Cosby, Johnette v. Department of Human Resources, Allegany County Department of Social Services - Case No. 74, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - DID THE MARYLAND LEGISLATURE WHEN REMOVING FROM FAM. LAW. ART., SEC. 5-706.1 THE REQUIREMENT THAT A FINDING OF NEGLECT IN A CINA CASE PRECLUDE A PETITIONER FROM CHALLENGING A REGISTRY ENTRY, INTEND TO STILL ALLOW A PETITIONER TO BE BLOCKED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL?

Bagada Dionas v. State - Case No. 75, September Term 2011. (Case filed pro-se is denied. Case filed by Public Defender is granted.).

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT THE IMPROPER LIMITATION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS’ EXPECTATION OF LENIENCY WAS HARMLESS ERROR WHERE THE JURY DELIBERATED FOR FIVE DAYS AFTER THREE AND A HALF DAYS OF TESTIMONY AND SENT OUT FOUR NOTES INDICATING THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT OR WERE OTHERWISE HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH DELIBERATIONS?

District of Columbia v. Wayne Singleton, et al. - Case No. 77, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - WHEN A MOTOR VEHICLE LEAVES THE ROAD & PASSENGERS SUE FOR DAMAGES & THE ONLY EVIDENCE AT TRIAL IS BY A PASSENGER WHO WAS ASLEEP AT THE TIME THE VEHICLE LEFT THE ROAD & AWOKE ONLY AS THE VEHICLE WAS AIRBORNE & WHO DID NOT KNOW HOW OR WHY THE VEHICLE LEFT THE ROAD, DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DISMISS THE CASE AT THE CLOSE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AND DID THE LOWER COURT ERR BY REVERSING THAT DECISION?

Environment Intergrity Project, et al. v. Mirant Ash Management, LLC, et al. - Case No. 70, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT REVERSED MORE THAN TWO DECADES OF THIS COURT’S PRECEDENT & ADDED A NEW STANDING REQUIREMENT FOR INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE MD DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ADEQUATELY REPRESENTS THE CITIZEN-PETITIONERS’ INTERESTS IN AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION DESPITE THE DEPARTMENT’S REPEATED ADMISSIONS TO THE CONTRARY?

Gomez, Alicia v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc. - Case No. 72, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - COMMERCIAL LAW - (1) WAS THE LOWER COURT WRONG TO CONCLUDE THAT THE MD CREDIT SERVICES BUSINESS ACT (ACT) REQUIRES A DIRECT PAYMENT FROM THE CONSUMER TO THE LOAN ARRANGER AND THEREFORE PETITIONER DID NOT STATE A CLAIM? (2) WAS THE LOWER COURT IN ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DID NOT INTEND THE USURY AMENDMENT OR THE ACT IN GENERAL TO APPLY TO A REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN ARRANGER LIKE RESPONDENT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PERFORM CREDIT REPAIR? (3) DID LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT STATED OR IMPLIED THAT THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO CREDIT REPAIR COMPANIES & TO BUSINESSES THAT ARRANGE LOANS FOR CONSUMERS USING THIRD-PARTY LENDERS WITH HIGHER INTEREST RATES THAN PERMITTED UNDER MD LAW? (4) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN SUGGESTING THAT THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO CREDIT SERVICES BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS IN WHICH BUSINESSES RECEIVE MONEY OR OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION DIRECTLY FROM THE CONSUMER?

In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of Cross H. - Case No. 78, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - FAMILY LAW - MAY THE CIRCUIT COURT PROCEED WITH A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS HEARING WHEN THE PARENTS’ APPEAL OF THE CINA ORDER CHANGING THE PERMANENCY PLAN FROM REUNIFICATION TO NON-RELATIVE ADOPTION IS STILL PENDING IN THE CSA?

King, Alonzo Jay Jr. v. State - Case No. 68, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS DNA EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH A WARRANTLESS SEARCH CONDUCTED WITHOUT ANY INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION OF WRONGDOING? (2) DID THE COURT BELOW IMPROPERLY SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE DEFENSE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A SEARCH OR SEIZURE MADE WITHOUT INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION IS UNREASONABLE?

Moore, Elizabeth A., et vir., v. Residential Funding Company, LLC, et al. - Case No. 80, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - COMMERCIAL LAW - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN (1) GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY THE APPELLEES? (2) HOLDING THAT APPELLANTS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM FOR ACCESS TO THEIR SECOND MORTGAGE LOAN DOCUMENTS BASED UPON BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH & FAIR DEALING & THE MD CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT? (3) HOLDING THAT APPELLANTS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF THE CLOSING COSTS & PAYMENTS MADE ON THEIR SECOND MORTGAGE LOAN? AND (4) HOLDING THAT APPELLANTS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER THE MD SECONDARY MORTGAGE LOAN LAW, MD. COMM. CODE SEC. 12-401 ET. SEQ.?

Port, Jessica v. Virginia Anne Cowen - Case No. 69, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - MUST THE TRIAL COURT GRANT A DIVORCE TO TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX WHO WERE VALIDLY MARRIED IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND WHO OTHERWISE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DIVORCE UNDER MARYLAND LAW?

Maryland Board of Public Works, et al. v. K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC - Case No. 67, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - ENVIRONMENTAL - (1) DID THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ACT CONSTITUTIONALLY & WITHIN ITS LEGAL BOUNDARIES WHEN IT DENIED A LICENSE FOR APPELLEE TO PLACE STRUCTURES OVER, ON, IN AND UNDER STATE-OWNED TIDAL WETLANDS? (2) IS THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS VESTED WITH DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OVER THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR DREDGING OR FILLING STATE WETLANDS?

Smith, Tyrone L. v. State - Case No. 76, September Term 2011.

ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDE THAT THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE LICENSING REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS (2) & (3) OF TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE, SEC. 16-101(a) ARE NOT ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE OF DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE, BUT ARE INSTEAD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES THAT MUST BE RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT?

 

Denied October 12, 2011

Carter, Joseph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 352