Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2011

 

Granted November 23, 2011

Miller, Lincoln v. State - Case No. 91, September Term, 2011

 

Denied November 21, 2011

Brice, Charles Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 297
Buzbee, Timothy Joseph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 287
Carey v. Ryan - Pet. Docket No. 266
Clarkes, Notheron N. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 342
Clune, Connor William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 339
Eckel, Grason John-Allen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 317
Elliott, Andre Jerome v. State - Pet. Docket No. 331
Fernandes v. Kaywood Liquord - Pet. Docket No. 294
Gaines, Joshua O. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 318
Gertz, Robert E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 269
Green, Darryl E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 282
Grey v. Enterprise - Pet. Docket no. 400
Griffin, Craig Lyndall v. State - Pet. Docket No. 311
Hargrave v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 235
Harrison, Claude Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 336
Hazelwood, Dana v. State - Pet. Docket No. 314
Hester, Steven Ernest v. State - Pet. Docket No. 280
Horton, Fernando Grady v. State - Pet. Docket No. 329
In Re: Christina D. - Pet. Docket No. 330
In Re: Jordan F. - Pet. Docket No. 481
Ireland v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 259
Jones, In the Matter of Carl Jones - Pet. Docket No. 278
Kangere, Samuel Johnson v. State - Pet. Docket No. 257
Kedzierski, Kendall Matthew v. State - Pet. Docket No. 340
Kirk v. Dept. of Corrections - Pet. Docket No. 170
Krol v. Garonzik - Pet. Docket No. 315
Loewinger v. Weinfeld - Pet. Docket No. 325
Maczka, Eric v. State - Pet. Docket No. 303
McCain, Shelton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 412 and contingent cross-petition both denied
McDaniel v. Prince Place - Pet. Docket No. 326
Miklasz v. Nationwide - Pet. Docket No. 332
Mitchell v. Housing Authority - Pet. Docket No. 344
Mouzon v. Putnam - Pet. Docket No. 288
Mpoy, Bruno K. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 313
Murray, Charles v. State - Pet. Docket No. 304
Nelson, Nathaniel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 161
Ogunsula v. Vista Gardens - Pet. Docket No. 320
Patterson, Ricky T. v. Stae - Pet. Docket No. 298
Pennington, Craig William v. State - Pet. Docket No. 337
Perez Corp. v. Mullen - Pet. Docket No. 333
Riggins, Rommell v. State - Pet. Docket No. 296
Savage, Christopher Andre v. State - Pet. Docket No. 338
Smith v. Allegany County - Pet. Docket No. 283
Smith v. Kim - Pet. Docket No. 307
Smoot, Scott v. State - Pet. Docket No. 343
Spencer, Thurman Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 281
St. Aubin v. Dept. of Labor - Pet. Docket No. 209
State v. Gregory Williams - Pet. Docket No. 285
Stephens v. Middlebrook Manor - Pet. Docket No. 309
Strouse v. Strouse - Pet. Docket No. 301
Taylor, Kiheem Malik v. State - Pet. Docket No. 334
Thomas, Vincent v. State - Pet. Docket No. 286
Thompson v. Allstate - Pet. Docket No. 306
Tweh v. Smith - Pet. Docket No. 295
Vasquez, Jose v. State - Pet. Docket No. 293
Waxter v. M.T.A. - Pet. Docket No. 140
Williams, Gregory v. State - Pet. Docket No. 249

 

Granted November 18, 2011

Chaz Kinichi Bazzle v. State of Maryland - Case No. 89, September Term, 2011.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DECLINE PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE THEORY OF VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION? (2) IN A PROSECUTION IN WHICH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERPETRATOR IS AT ISSUE IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE THE LEVEL OF CERTAINTY OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS?

Robert S. Cochran, Jr. et al. v. Griffith Energy Services, Inc. et al. - Case No. 87, September Term, 2011.

ISSUE - ARE INJURED INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT OWNERS & DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO TEST THE PROPERTY BARRED BY A PRIOR JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST SUCH THAT A PARTY WHO COMMITS FRAUD DURING LITIGATION CONTINUES TO ESCAPE LIABILITY EVEN WHEN THAT FRAUD INFLICTED ACTUAL HARM ON THE VICTIMS INDEPENDENT OF THE LITIGATION?

Vanessa Fisher v. Eastern Correctional Institution - Case No. 90, September Term, 2011.

ISSUE - PERSONNEL & PENSIONS - WHETHER THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED PETITIONER’S APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT, BY ALLOWING THE SECRETARY OF HER AGENCY ADDITIONAL TIME TO MEET HIS STATUTORY RESPONSIBLY TO DECIDE HER APPEAL, SHE INADVERTENTLY RENDERED HER APPEAL UNTIMELY?

Vincent T. Greco, Jr. v. State of Maryland - Case No. 86, September Term, 2011 (Petition and Cross Petition granted.)

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) MAY THE LOWER COURT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER AN APPEAL TAKEN FROM A SUPERSEDED TRIAL COURT ORDER? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THIS COURT DID NOT SET FORTH A NEW CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED RULE WHEN IT OVERRULED JOHNSON V. STATE AND THEREBY PERMITTED CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF MENTAL IMPAIRMENTS IN DEFENSE OF SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR WHEN IT DECLINED TO APPLY THIS COURT’S MANDATORY RETROACTIVITY STANDARD TO A RULE THAT CORRECTED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT ON THE FACTFINDING PROCESS OF CRIMINAL TRIALS? (4) MAY A FIFTY-YEAR TERM OF YEARS BE IMPOSED AS PUNISHMENT FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER OR FIRST DEGREE RAPE? (5) EVEN IF PETITIONER HAD SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS COURT HAD ESTABLISHED A NEW PROCEDURAL STANDARD THAT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED IN ITS HOLDING IN HOEY V. STATE AND SIMMONS V. STATE, DID PETITIONER FAIL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE STANDARD WAS INTENDED TO BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY THEREBY DISQUALIFYING HIM FROM POST-CONVICTION RELIEF UNDER SEC. 7-106(c) OF THE CRIM. PROC. ART.? (6) WAS PETITIONER’S UNRELATED CHALLENGE TO HIS RESENTENCING NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OR THIS COURT?

HNS Development, LLC v. People's Counsel for Baltimore County et al. - Case No. 85, September Term, 2011

ISSUES - (1) DID THE COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS IMPERMISSIBLY CREATE A NEW REQUIREMENT OF MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE IN ADDITION TO THAT CONTAINED IN THE STATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS? (2) DID THE COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS IMPERMISSIBLY CREATE UPON A FINDING OF MASTER PLAN CONFLICT A MEANS OF TAKING WITHOUT COMPENSATION? (3) IS THE STATEMENT ON A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT A COUNTY AGENCY WOULD OPPOSE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF A PARCEL & LOT THE SAME AS AN EXACTION OR CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT AS DISCUSSED IN CITY OF ANNAPOLIS V. WATERMAN?

Jarmal Johnson v. State of Maryland - Case No. 84, September Term, 2011 (Petition and Cross Petition granted.)

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY DISMISS PETITIONER’S APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CORRECT AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE AS UNTIMELY? (2) SHOULD THE CONCEPT OF “CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT” OF AN INDICTMENT BE RECOGNIZED IN MD & DID THE LOWER COURT PROPERLY APPLY IT IN THIS CASE? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT IMPROPERLY FAIL TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S APPEAL WHERE PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A RECORD SUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW OF HIS APPELLATE CONTENTION? (4) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO DISMISS

McKenzie A. Nicolas v. State of Maryland - Case No. 88, September Term, 2011.

ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) 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)? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER’S CONVICTIONS FOR SECOND DEGREE ASSAULT DO NOT MERGE INTO HIS CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES WHERE THE RECORD IS AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHETHER THE JURY CONVICTED PETITIONER OF SECOND DEGREE ASSAULT BASED ON ACTS DIFFERENT THAN THOSE UNDERLYING HIS CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST?

Peter Paul Toland, Jr. v. Akiko Futagi - Case No. 83, September Term, 2011

ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED & VIOLATED PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST IN THE CARE, CUSTODY & CONTROL OF HIS DAUGHTER IN VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION & THE MD DECLARATION OF RIGHTS? (2) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED & MISAPPLIED THE MD’S UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION & ENFORCEMENT ACT WHEN IT GRANTED THE APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS?

Washington Home Remodelers, Inc. v. State of Maryland, Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division - Case No. 82, September Term, 2011

ISSUES - COMMERCIAL LAW - (1) DOES THE CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION HAVE INVESTIGATIVE & ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OVER THE ACCESS & USE OF CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTS IN MD. CODE ANN. STATE GOV. SEC. 14-1201, ET. SEQ. WHEN THAT AUTHORITY IS SPECIFICALLY VESTED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCIAL REGULATION OF THE DEPART. OF LABOR, LICENSING & REGULATION? (2) DOES THE CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION HAVE INVESTIGATIVE & ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OVER THE MD HOME IMPROVEMENT LAW, MD. CODE ANN., BUS. REG. SEC. 8-101, ET. SEQ. WHEN THAT AUTHORITY IS SPECIFICALLY VESTED WITH THE MD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION?

 

Granted November 1, 2011

120 West Fayette Street LLLP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore - Case No. 81, September Term 2011.

ISSUES - (1) WHETHER AN INCIDENTAL THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY’S CHALLENGE TO ENFORCE A CONTRACT PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY? (2) WHETHER PLAINTIFF BELOW HAS ANY BASIS TO ASSERT A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION CHALLENGING THE TRUST’S REVIEW & APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SUPERBLOCK DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) BETWEEN THE TRUST & THE CITY?