Petitions for Writ of Certiorari - November, 2020

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2020

 

 

Granted November 10 , 2020

Clifford Cain, et al. v. Midland Funding, LLC - Case No. 38, September Term, 2020

Issues – 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?

Robert F. Cherry, Jr., et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City - Case No. 36, September Term, 2020

Issues – 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?

Tasha Gambrell v. Midland Funding, LLC - Case No. 39, September Term, 2020

Issues – 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?

Kenneth Mahai v. State of Maryland - Case No. 41, September Term, 2020

Issues – 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?

State of Maryland v. Sean Morris - Case No. 37, September Term, 2020

Issues – 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?

Toni Tengeres v. State of Maryland - Case No. 42, September Term, 2020

Issues – 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?

Kevin Whittington v. State of Maryland - Case No. 35, September Term, 2020

Issues – 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?

D'Angelo Wright v. State of Maryland - Case No. 40, September Term, 2020

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court err in giving a flight instruction where the sole contested issue in the case was the identity of the person who committed the crime and fled the scene?

 

 

Denied November 20, 2020

Allen, Reginald v. State - Pet. Docket No. 309
Ausby, Aaron J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 303
Brooks, Craig S. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 284
Careton, James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 295
Carrington, Duran v. State - Pet. Docket No. 267
Crawford, Herbert v. State - Pet. Docket No. 249
Cunningham v. Baltimore Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 270
Davis-Bey, Matthew v State - Pet. Docket No. 112
Duncan, Derius v. State - Pet. Docket No. 145
Fauntleroy v. Bmore Betty, Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 276
Francis, Norman Jay, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 259
Glover, Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 268
Gogna v. Sullivan - Pet. Docket No. 293
In re: J.R. - Pet. Docket No. 254
Jackson v. RCC&S and Chesapeake Employers Ins. - Pet. Docket No. 272
Jackson v. RCC&S and Chesapeake Employers Ins. - Pet. Docket No. 273
Jackson, Dyrron v. State - Pet. Docket No. 266
Johnson, Deontra v. State - Pet. Docket No. 289
Key, Lamar v. State - Pet. Docket No. 260
Leon-Ramos, Bayron v. State - Pet. Docket No. 285
Lyons v. Chesapeake Spice Co. - Pet. Docket No. 278
Marshall, Timothy Isiaih v. State - Pet. Docket No. 274
McIntyre v. McIntyre - Pet. Docket No. 287
McKnight, Gregory Deron v. State - Pet. Docket No. 269
Moore v. Reddy - Pet. Docket No. 264
Moulsdale v. Billing - Pet. Docket No. 280
Myers, James Kevin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 235
Outland v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage - Pet. Docket No. 134
Paterakis v. Paterakis - Pet. Docket No. 294
Pone v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, Calvert Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 126
Rodriguez, Luis Bonilla v. State - Pet. Docket No. 297
Scott, Geoffrey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 299
State v. Alcindor, Jason - Pet. Docket No. 275
State v. Panetta, Nathan - Pet. Docket No. 291
Tarver, Eddie v. State - Pet. Docket No. 292
Thurston, Richard v. State - Pet. Docket No. 239
Traettino v. Traettino - Pet. Docket No. 300
Warfield, Brandon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 304
Wilson, Jamie v. State - Pet. Docket No. 305
Worsham v. Friends of Marilyn Mosby - Pet. Docket No. 261

 

 

Granted November 23 , 2020

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, et al. v. Donna Kemp - Case No. 43, September Term, 2020

Issues – 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?