|
HOME | OPINIONS | JOBS | FORMS | FAQs | SITE INDEX | CONTACT US | SEARCH |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Thursday, April 1, 2010: Bar Admissions AG 40 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Joseph Zodrow Attorney for Petitioner: Glenn M. Grossman No. 111 Merle Unger v. State of Maryland 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? Attorneys for Appellant: Daniel H. Ginsburg and Gary E. Bair No. 112 W.M. Schlosser Co., et al. v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, et al. 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? Attorney for Appellant: Timothy E. McLaughlin No. 102 Thomas Smith v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT BASED ON A GROUND CONCEDED BY THE STATE AT TRIAL AND ON APPEAL AND NOT DISCUSSED BY THE COURT OR PARTIES AT ORAL ARGUMENT? (2) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT IN CUSTODY FOR PURPOSES OF MIRANDA WHERE A POLICE SWAT TEAM RAIDED PETITIONER’S APARTMENT, HANDCUFFED PETITIONER AND HIS GUESTS, AND BLOCKED THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT WHILE A SEARCH OF PETITIONER’S APARTMENT WAS CONDUCTED? (3) DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INTERROGATION WHERE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, KNOWING PETITIONER’S DESIRE TO PROTECT HIS GIRLFRIEND, CONFRONTED PETITIONER WITH INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AN DECLARED HIS INTENTION TO ARREST PETITIONER’S GIRLFRIEND? Attorney for Appellant: Brian L. Zavin No. 105 Clavon Smith v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - IS PROOF OF PRESENCE IN A HOUSE WHERE MARIJUANA IS BEING SMOKED SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA? Attorney for Appellant: George E. Burns
AG 43 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Garland Howe Stillwell Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein No. 107 State of Maryland v. Dean Cates, Randy Kucsan, Bill Tran, Dana Way ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) WHETHER A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION MAY TRANSFER LIABILITY TO A POLICE OFFICER FOR A SPEED MONITORING SYSTEM CITATION WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER WAS ON DUTY AND OPERATING AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE IN EXCESS OF THE SPEED LIMIT? (2) WHETHER A POLICE OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO “DUE PROCESS” BEFORE LIABILITY FOR A SPEED MONITORING SYSTEM CITATION MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO THE OFFICER? Attorney for Appellant: William A. Snoddy No. 108 Benoit Tshiwala v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DOES A SENTENCE REVIEW PANEL CONVENED PURSUANT TO MD RULE 4-344 LACK JURISDICTION TO DENY A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SENTENCE FILED PURSUANT TO RULE 4-345? Attorney for Appellant: Gary E. Bair No. 104 DRD Pool Service, Inc. v. Thomas Freed, et al. ISSUES - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - (1) WHETHER A CLAIM FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN A SURVIVORSHIP ACTION CAN BE SUPPORTED SOLELY BY AN EXPERT OPINION IN THE ABSENCE OF CASE SPECIFIC INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE? (2) IS THERE ANY RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE COURT TO CONTINUE TO COUNTENANCE THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE MOST SERIOUSLY INJURED NON-MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TORT CLAIMANTS THAT THE APPLICATION OF MD’S STATUTORY CAP ON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES CAUSES WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE LEGISLATURE’S PRESUMPTION THAT THE CAP RESULTS IN LOWER LIABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUMS? Attorney for Appellant: Steven R. Migdal No. 99 Laquarie Donte Harvey v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DOES MD. RULE 4-326(d) REQUIRE THAT NOTIFICATION TO THE PARTIES OF THE RECEIPT OF ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THE JURY PERTAINING TO THE ACTION BE ON THE RECORD IN OPEN COURT OR IN WRITING AND FILED IN THE ACTION OR MERELY THAT THE COMMUNICATION ITSELF BE ON THE RECORD IN OPEN COURT OR IN WRITING AND FILED IN THE ACTION? (2) IS THE ABSENCE OF A NOTIFICATION ON THE RECORD PURSUANT TO MD. RULE 4-326(d) SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH NOTIFICATION NEVER OCCURRED? Attorney for Appellant: Deborah S. Richardson
AG 16 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Thanh Hoang Attorney for Petitioner: Fletcher P. Thompson Misc. 3 Board of County Commissioners of St. Mary’s County v. Marcas, L.L.C. Attorneys for Appellant: Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr. and Emily A. Daneler No. 100 Jay Anthony Jones v. State of Maryland ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO OFFER ARGUMENT IN MITIGATION BEFORE IMPOSING SENTENCE? (2) DID PETITIONER FAIL TO PRESERVE HIS CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ALLOW HIM TO OFFER ARGUMENT IN MITIGATION BEFORE IMPOSING SENTENCE WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT REFER TO ANY MITIGATING FACTORS DURING THE RESENTENCING HEARING, DID NOT OBJECT TO THE RESENTENCING PROCEDURE AND STATED “OKAY” WHEN THE RESENTENCING COURT STATED “I DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYTHING TO MITIGATE ON”? Attorney for Appellant: Sherrie B. Glasser No. 103 State of Maryland v. Emanuel Tejada ISSUES - CRIMINAL LAW - (1) DID LOWER COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT A COMPLAINT THAT THERE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS DESIGNATED PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE EXERCISE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES IS PRESERVED AS LONG AS A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT EXHAUSTED ALL OF HIS OR HER PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES OBJECTS BEFORE THE JURY IS SWORN? (2) DOES A PARTY WAIVE APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE ISSUE BY CONTINUING TO EXERCISE STRIKES AFTER THE ISSUE IS RAISED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR ANOTHER PARTY? (3) DOES THE TRIAL COURT HAVE DISCRETION TO REJECT A PARTY’S ATTEMPT TO RETRACT A WAIVER OF AN OBJECTION? Attorney for Appellant: Gary E. O'Connor
AG 27 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lorin Henry Bleecker Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein ISSUE - REAL PROPERTY - DID THE LOWER COURT MISAPPLY THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER TO THE OPTION-TO-PURCHASE PROVISION IN A LONG-TERM LEASE WHEN IT RULED THAT APPELLANT’S LEASE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN ESTABLISHING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF APPELLEES’ LAND WHERE APPELLANT WAS THE BUYER BUT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IF THE BUYER WAS ANYONE ELSE? Attorney for Appellant: Matthew T. Mills No. 87 Erick Leroy Spencer v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY HOLD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE PETITIONER’S ROBBERY CONVICTION? Attorney for Appellant: Juan P. Reyes No. 101 In Re: Elrich S. ISSUES - JUVENILE - (1) WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY FINDING ON THE BASIS THAT ASSUMING PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE, IT WOULD NOT BE IN PETITIONER’S BEST INTEREST TO VACATE THE DELINQUENCY FINDING? (2) WHETHER A JUDGE MAY ORDER THE PUBLIC DEFENDER TO STRIKE THEIR APPEARANCE IN A CASE AND PROVIDE A PRIVATE “PANEL” ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE ACCUSED? (3) WHETHER THE JUVENILE JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THIS CASE AFTER SHE MADE CLEAR THAT HER ORDER, REQUIRING THE PUBLIC DEFENDER TO STRIKE ITS APPEARANCE WAS BASED UPON OPINIONS DERIVED FROM OUT-OF-COURT CONVERSATIONS WITH PERSONS UNRELATED TO THE CASE? (4) IS A MOTION TO VACATE UNDER RULE 11-116 AN APPEALABLE ORDER? Attorney for Appellant: Marc A. DeSimone No. 106 Leon Steven Calloway v. State of Maryland ISSUE - CRIMINAL LAW - DID THE LOWER COURTS ERR IN LIMITING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE STATE’S KEY WITNESS REGARDING HIS EXPECTATION OF LENIENCY FROM THE STATE? Attorney for Appellant: Deborah S. Richardson
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified. After April 8, 2010, the Court will recess until
BESSIE M. DECKER
|