Cases Pending Before The Court of Appeals

NOTE: Cases are added to this table when they are scheduled for oral argument. Note that oral argument dates may change at any time. After oral arguments, a link to the archived video recording is added. Cases are removed when the mandate issues (or, for attorney disciplinary matters, approximately 30 days after the opinion was filed).

Click on the column title to sort by that column.

Case No. Year Petitioner Respondent Cert. Granted Oral Arguments Opinion Filed Issues
068
2019 Anne Arundel Cnty. Reeves 2020-02-11 2020-09-11
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Torts – 1) As a matter of first impression does Md. Code § 11-110 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article limit the amount of damages recoverable for negligently causing the death of a pet? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence of gross negligence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1191, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
075
2019 Montague State 2020-03-11 2020-09-14
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2020-12-23
[Opinion]
Criminal Law – Is artistic expression, in the form of rap lyrics, that does not have a nexus to the alleged crime relevant as substantive evidence of guilt?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2033, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
074
2019 State Carter 2020-03-11 2020-09-15
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Does the Maryland Transit Administration’s (“MTA”) practice of fare inspection on the Light Rail comply with the Fourth Amendment? 2) If fare inspection does not comply with the Fourth Amendment, did the discovery of an open warrant for Respondent’s arrest nevertheless attenuate the violation under Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), where any unconstitutionality of the MTA’s fare inspection practice was not previously established?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 478, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
006
2020 Fowlkes Choudhry 2020-03-30 2020-10-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Torts – Did CSA err in its formulation and application of Maryland law regarding what a wrongful death plaintiff must prove in order to recover damages for the loss of household services that would have been provided by Petitioner’s deceased adult child?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1148, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
003
2020 State Elzey 2020-03-11 2020-10-01
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Was CSA wrong in holding that a jury may not be instructed to find that the victim abused the defendant and the defendant suffers from Battered Spouse Syndrome before considering expert testimony on the syndrome?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1131, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
046 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Keating   2020-10-02
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2020-12-23
[Oral Arguments]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
001
2020 Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Selective Way Ins. 2020-03-11 2020-10-02
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Civil Procedure – Did CSA err in ruling that prejudgment interest is not recoverable as a matter of right on amounts paid for defense costs where a liability insurer breaches its duty to defend?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 755, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
002
2020 Taylor State 2020-03-11 2020-10-02
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Where the only disputed issue at trial was identity, and the only evidence of identity was the victim’s identification of Petitioner, did CSA misapply the harmless error test in holding that an erroneously-given “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the victim is legally sufficient to sustain the convictions? 2) If preserved, should review of the trial court’s scientific evidence instruction be based on law existing at the time of the trial in 2008 and not based on this Court’s decisions in Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011), and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011)? If so, did the trial court act within its discretion when it gave the scientific evidence instruction when the instruction was proper under then existing law, i.e., Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549 (2007)? 3) When Petitioner took exception to the scientific evidence instruction but did not state any particular grounds for the objection, did Petitioner fail to preserve for appellate review the question of the claimed error of the trial court’s instruction?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2190, Sept. Term, 2016 [Opinion]
037 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Karambelas   2020-10-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2020-10-06
[PC Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
063 AG
2018 Attorney Grievance Johnson   2020-10-29
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
010
2020 Hector Bank of New York Mellon 2020-05-08 2020-10-29
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Estates & Trusts – 1) As a matter of first impression, can a business Trust be individually liable for compliance with the Baltimore City Housing Code, pursuant to an interpretation of Estates & Trusts Art. §14.5-908? 2) Did CSA err in carving out an exception to Allen v. Dackman, 413 Md. 132 (2010), for a bank that was the Trustee of a mortgage-backed security, and that foreclosed on an old deteriorated property in Baltimore and then purchases said property at auction? 3) May a Bank acting as Trustee which owned a rental property face liability based upon the local Housing Code, or do the Bank's own internal documents and agreements decide the scope of liability?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3100, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
011
2020 Canales-Yanez State 2020-05-08 2020-10-29
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) When a Brady violation occurs during a bench trial, is the test for materiality satisfied simply by the judge’s determination that his verdict would not have changed had the evidence not been suppressed unless such a conclusion would be patently unreasonable, without giving due consideration to the effect of the suppression of evidence on the defense case preparation and trial strategy? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the Brady violation did not undermine confidence in the verdict?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2209, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
008
2020 Mayor & City Cncl. of Balt. ProVen Mgmt. 2020-04-10 2020-10-30
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err when it held that including an assertion of procedural error in a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision turns such a petition, in substance, into a request for a writ of common law mandamus under Murrell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 376 Md. 170 (2003)? 2) Did CSA err when it held that a petition for judicial review that sought reversal of an administrative decision was, in substance, in the nature of a mandamus action merely because the administrative hearing and administrative decision were alleged to have been performed in a procedurally inadequate manner?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 610, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
001 Misc.
2020 United Bank Buckingham   2020-10-30
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Questions: (1) Whether the Maryland Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act, see Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 15-201 et seq., which generally applies to “conveyances” made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, reaches a change in life insurance beneficiary, particularly in light of Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 16-111(d)? (2) Whether Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts § 15-102 grants a guardian of property the authority to change the beneficiaries of life insurance policies?
 
006 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Sperling   2020-11-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
007
2020 Uthus Valley Mill Camp 2020-04-10 2020-11-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Real Property – Can a person claiming the right to possession against a person in actual peaceable possession of real property bring an action in circuit court for common law trespass to recover possession of the property, when the Maryland legislature has committed such actions for possession to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the district court?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2366, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
009
2020 Clear Channel Outdoor Dept. of Finance 2020-05-08 2020-11-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Constitutional Law– 1) Is the operation of billboards protected by the First Amendment, thereby subjecting its taxation to heightened scrutiny? 2) Does the Tax single out a single platform for speech or a small group of speakers, thereby subjecting it to heightened scrutiny?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2910, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
012
2020 State McGagh 2020-06-05 2020-11-06
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when, citing First Amendment and policy-based concerns, it applied a non-deferential, de novo standard of review to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Respondent’s convictions for perjury and false statement? 2) Did CSA err in finding the evidence insufficient to show willful and knowing falsity, and in finding that one witness’s testimony corroborated by surveillance video was insufficient to satisfy the “two-witness rule” for perjury? 3) Was the evidence legally insufficient to support Respondent’s convictions for perjury and/or false statement because the evidence failed to show that the statements were material?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 408, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
092 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Lord   2020-12-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
2020-12-10
[Order]
Attorney disciplinary matter.
 
024
2020 State Miller 2020-08-26 2020-12-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court violated Respondent’s right to confrontation by admitting the results of DNA testing and analysis through a witness who did not author the report of DNA testing and analysis, but who served as its technical reviewer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2053, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
019
2020 Leidig State 2020-07-13 2020-12-03
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Constitutional Law – Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it admitted DNA and serological evidence through a witness who did not perform the analysis of the crime scene evidence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 463, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
015
016
017
2020 State Sayles, Johnson, & Oxely 2020-07-13 2020-12-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA wrongly conclude that a jury has the power to nullify the verdict and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when, in response to a jury note, it told the jury that it could not resort to jury nullification? 2) If the trial court abused its discretion when it responded to the jury’s inquiries concerning jury nullification, did CSA wrongly conclude that this error prejudiced Respondent?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 2794, 2797, & 2798, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
018
2020 Impac Mortgage Holdings Timm 2020-07-13 2020-12-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Corporations & Associations – 1) Did CSA err by construing the amendments to Petitioner’s corporate charter as unambiguous without addressing whether Petitioner’s construction is reasonable? 2) Did the trial court err by applying contra proferentem and granting summary judgment despite evidence of the parties’ intent and material fact disputes without giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2119, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
014
2020 Travelocity.com Comptroller 2020-07-13 2020-12-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Tax-General – 1) Did Petitioner’s activities in Maryland during the periods covered by the assessment (the “Periods in Issue”) result in the provision of a “right to occupy a room or lodgings as a transient guest,” within the meaning of Maryland Code, Tax-General Article (“T-G”) § 11-101(k)(1)(ii)? 2) Was Petitioner a “Vendor” during the Periods in Issue within the meaning of T-G § 11-101(o)? 3) Did the Tax Court fail to give effect to Chapter 3, Acts of 2015, which altered the definitions of “Tangible personal property” and “Vendor”? 4) Did the Tax Court err in determining that the base for calculating the sales tax had to be reduced by the “Tax Recovery Charge”? 5) Did the Tax Court err in deciding that T-G § 13-1102(b) did not apply to permit Respondent to assess sales taxes beyond the four-year limitation period? 6) Did the evidence in the record establish that Petitioner sold its customers the right to occupy a room or lodgings as a transient guest, a transaction subject to the sales-and-use tax under T-G § 11-101(k)(1)(ii), when the customers reserved the room on Petitioner’s website and paid Petitioner for the room reservations made on Petitioner’s website? 7) Did the evidence in the record establish that Petitioner rented to its customers, on a short-term basis, passenger cars or other vehicles, a transaction that is subject to the sales-and-use tax under T-G § 11-101(k)(1)(i) when the customers paid Petitioner for the rental car reservations made on Petitioner’s website? 8) Did the Tax Court correctly conclude that because Petitioner sold tangible personal property located in Maryland, Petitioner was required to collect and remit sales-and-use tax as a vendor engaged in the business of a retail vendor or out-of-state vendor under T-G § 11-701? 9) Did the Tax Court err in holding that sales-and-use tax was not due on the lump sum fee for service charges and estimated taxes that Petitioner charged its customers, when the sales-and-use tax was not separately stated from the service charges and the portion attributable to the estimated tax was not remitted to Respondent but paid to a third party?

Court of Special Appeals, Nos. 508 & 2540, Sept. Term, 2019 (pending)
020
2020 In re: Special Investigation Misc. 1064   2020-07-13 2020-12-07

Please note: Oral Arguments in this case are sealed by order of the Court of Appeals.

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Court of Special Appeals, No. 3463, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
 
021
2020 Hunt State 2020-08-13 2020-12-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the fact that Joseph Kopera’s false credentials were discovered over a decade later by another attorney in a different case was enough for the trial court to find that Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to act with due diligence, as is required to prevail under Md. Code §8-301(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Does CSA’s holding in this case conflict with this Court’s “considered dicta” in State v. Hunt, 443 Md. 238 (2015)?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2429, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
022
2020 K. Hovnanian Homes Havre de Grace 2020-08-13 2020-12-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Municipal Corporations – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a “strong mayor” city charter abrogates the common law of municipal contracts, which gives a city council power to enter into contracts by motion or resolution without the mayor’s signature? 2) Did CSA err by holding that under the separation of powers doctrine, a “strong mayor” city charter invalidates a recoupment agreement entered into by a city council without the mayor’s signature?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 796, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
028
2020 State Ablonczy 2020-10-06 2021-01-04
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Criminal Procedure – Should accepting a jury as ultimately empaneled waive any prior objection to the trial court’s refusal to propound voir dire questions?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 3219, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported).
026
2020 Conner State 2020-09-14 2021-01-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Code of Judicial Conduct – Given that Drug Court is a non-adversarial, team-based treatment program in which participants are expected to openly discuss relapses and other setbacks in their recovery, should a judge who supervised a defendant in Drug Court generally recuse from the defendant’s subsequent violation of probation proceeding when the conduct that allegedly violated the conditions of probation was the subject of Drug Court hearings, meetings, and correspondence?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 134, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
027
2020 Wheeling Selene Finance 2020-09-14 2021-01-05
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Real Property – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a defendant’s violation of Md. Code § 7-113 of the Real Property Article does not give rise to a cause of action unless the protected resident physically vacates the residential property? 2) Did CSA err in holding that a consumer’s claim for emotional damage, such as fear, anxiety, anger, and accompanying physical manifestations, does not adequately allege an injury to state a private cause of action under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”)? 3) Did CSA err in holding that attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of a defendant’s unfair and deceptive misrepresentations made in violation of the MCPA do not constitute a recoverable injury supporting a private cause of action?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2128, Sept. Term, 2017 [Opinion]
023
2020 Clark State 2020-08-13 2021-01-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Criminal Law – When a defendant, who was found in possession of a single firearm, is convicted of both possession of an assault weapon, in violation of Md. Code §4-303(a)(2) of the Criminal Law Article (“Crim. Law”), and possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony involving a controlled dangerous substance, in violation of Crim. Law §5-622(b), must the convictions and sentences be merged?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 430, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
029
2020 State, et al. Rovin 2020-10-06 2021-01-07
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
  Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Do common law absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity and statutory immunity under the Maryland Tort Claims Act bar tort claims against prosecutors and law enforcement officers arising from an arrest based on the State’s Attorney’s and District Court Commissioner’s legal determination of probable cause? 2) Can law enforcement officers be civilly liable in tort when they sought an arrest warrant on the advice of the State’s Attorney and made an arrest with a warrant based on a judicial officer’s determination that the arrestee’s alleged conduct amounted to a crime, when that determination was later held to be legally erroneous?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 233, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
006 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Dailey   2021-01-08
[Oral Arguments]

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference.
 
  Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
003 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Fineblum   2020-02-01   Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
009 Misc.
2020 Trott State   2020-02-01   Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Question: Did the circuit court err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress?
033
2020 Merryman & FOP Univ. of Baltimore 2020-10-06 2020-02-01   Administrative Law – 1) Does the Office of Administrative Hearings have jurisdiction when the parties have contractually agreed to submit grievances regarding the interpretation of their collective bargaining agreement to the Office for adjudication? 2) Did CSA err in finding that because the remedy would involve awarding additional leave hours, the grievance constituted a complaint pertaining to the “general level of fringe benefits” prohibited by Md. Code §13-201(c) of the Education Article?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 649, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
036
2020 Cherry Baltimore City 2020-11-10 2020-02-04   Municipal Codes – 1) Did the trial court err in its reliance on Appellee’s actuarial expert who, in calculating breach of contract damages, failed to estimate what retirement benefit increases would have been owed by implementing the statutory plan contract as written and applied for decades? 2) Did the trial court err in computing breach of contract damages when it misinterpreted the actuarial funding required under Appellee’s statutory pension contract? 3) Did the trial court err in holding that Appellee did not breach its statutory pension contract with the active employee members of the retirement plan by the passage of Baltimore City Ordinance 10-306, which reduced promised pension benefits?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 188, Sept. Term, 2020 (pending)
008 Misc.
2020 In re: Walker & Walker     2021-02-04   Certified Question from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland
Question: Can a community association’s lien perfected under the Maryland Contract Lien Act, Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. §§ 14-201 et seq., secure unpaid damages, costs of collection, late charges, and attorney’s fees arising under the association’s governing documents that accrue subsequent to the recordation of the lien?
 
032
2020 Lawrence State 2020-10-06 2020-02-04   Criminal Law – Is wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on or about one’s person a strict liability crime?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 319, Sept. Term, 2019 (unreported)
037
2020 State Morris 2020-11-10 2020-02-05   Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does the trial court have discretion to admit testimony regarding a witness’ fear in the absence of a prior inconsistent statement by that witness? 2) If the trial court has that discretion, does the trial court have the discretion to admit testimony regarding the witness’ fear on direct examination in an appropriate case? 3) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in admitting brief testimony regarding fear, which made no mention of Respondent, during the direct examination of two witnesses?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2603, Sept. Term, 2018 (unreported)
042
2020 Tengeres State 2020-11-10 2020-02-05   Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s timely Motion to Reinstate, where good cause was shown, pursuant to the liberal standard for reinstatement in Md. Rule 7-112? 2) Did the trial court violate Petitioner’s due process rights by dismissing her de novo appeal for failure to appear at a status conference, where no critical issues would be decided?

(No. C-21-CR-20-000012, Circuit Court for Washington County)
054 AG
2019 Attorney Grievance Viladegut   2021-03-04   Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
038
2020 Cain Midland Funding 2020-11-10 2021-03-04   Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer? 3) Does Federal tolling under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(d) or class action tolling from a prior Federal action apply to a subsequent Maryland state action? 4) Did CSA have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s non-final orders?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1805, Sept. Term, 2017 (unreported)
039
2020 Gambrell Midland Funding 2020-11-10 2021-03-04   Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the statute of limitations for actions on judgments under Md. Code § 5-102(a)(3) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) apply to both parties to the judgment? 2) If Petitioner’s claims here are not governed by CJP § 5-102(a)(3), do claims under Maryland’s consumer protection laws concerning the continuing unfair, deceptive, and wrongful conduct accrue each time a damage occurs or an ill-gotten benefit is realized by the wrongdoer?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 1939, Sept. Term, 2016 (unreported)
043
2020 Nationstar Mortgage Kemp 2020-11-23 2021-03-05   Commercial Law – 1) Does the definition of a “lender” in Md. Code § 12-101(f) of the Commercial Law Article (“CL”) as “a person who makes a loan” include a mortgage purchaser and a mortgage servicer who do not make loans? 2) Is the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Practices Act limited to policing methods of collection and does it exempt claims for collector’s unlawful claims for amounts barred by Maryland law? 3) Does CL § 14-202(8) exclude novel collection practices?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2652, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]
030
2020 Chavis Blibaum & Assoc. 2020-10-06 2021-03-05   Commercial Law – 1) Does using a wage garnishment to collect excess post-judgment interest and post-judgment filing fees constitute a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code §14-202(8) of the Commercial Law Article?  2) Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for class certification, without conducting a hearing, when the undisputed evidence presented to the Court established that the identity of every class member can be established from the Respondent’s records?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 334, Sept. Term, 2019 [Opinion]
012 AG
2020 Attorney Grievance Neverdon   2021-03-08   Attorney disciplinary matter.

 
041
2020 Mahai State 2020-11-10 2021-03-08   Constitutional Law – 1) Does Article IV, § 14A of the Maryland Constitution, which authorizes CSA to exercise only intermediate appellate jurisdiction, preclude CSA from exercising final appellate jurisdiction by issuing a summary denial of an application for leave to appeal without addressing the issues raised, which has been held to bar further appellate review under Md. Code § 12-202 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”). 2) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to jury instructions regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? 3) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to object to voir dire questions that shifted the burden of determining bias to the venirepersons? 4) Did Petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to file a motion for modification of sentence and a motion for sentence review?

Court of Special Appeals, ALA No. 207, Sept. Term, 2020
035
2020 Whittington State 2020-11-10 2021-03-08   Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA, in a case of first impression, err in holding that the placement and use of a GPS tracking device was legal because a GPS Order issued under Md. Code § 1-203.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article satisfied the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applied in this case? 3) Did the issuing judge have a substantial basis for finding probable cause from exclusively circumstantial evidence of Petitioner’s criminal activities that provided a sufficient nexus to support a warrant to search his home, car, and person?

Court of Special Appeals, No. 2591, Sept. Term, 2018 [Opinion]