SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2016
Thursday, September 1, 2016:
Attorney for Petitioner: Amy S. Paulick
Attorney for Respondent: Steven Lee Shockett
No. 1 Wendy Cane v. EZ Rentals
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner the opportunity to assert and prove a defense under the Rent Escrow Statute to the landlord’s summary ejectment action? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s defense seeking rent offsets in the summary ejectment action?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Tassity Johnson
Attorney for Amicus: Stuart D. Kaplow
No. 5 Trendon Washington v. State of Maryland
Attorney for Appellant: Stephen B. Mercer
Attorney for Appellee: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.
No. 3 Daniela Bottini, et al. v. Department of Finance, Montgomery County, Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA erroneously conclude that a seized bank account was “money” within the meaning of Md.’s CDS forfeiture statute where different deadlines for filing a forfeiture petition apply to “money” than to other types of tangible or intangible personal property? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply to Petitioners’ seized bank account the longer post-conviction forfeiture petition filing deadline for “money”?
Attorney for Petitioner: William M. Jacobs
Attorney for Respondent: Haley M. Roberts
No. 8 Roderick Colvin v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s conclusion that, upon request for a jury poll, polling the jury foreperson is unnecessary to ensure a unanimous verdict? 2) Is the claimed defect in the polling procedure cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence?
Attorney for Petitioner: Rachel M. Kamins
Attorney for Respondent: Sarah Page Pritzlaff
No. 9 Hanover Investments, Inc. v. Susan J. Volkman
Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA erroneously impose new standards under Md. Code Ann., Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. (“CJP”) § 3-409(c) by depriving the trial court of all discretion to adjudicate a declaratory judgment action when there is a concurrent proceeding? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply, and thereby alter, the standards under CJP § 3-409(a) and (c) by concluding that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to support the trial court’s findings of unusual and compelling circumstances?
Attorney for Petitioner: Thomas W. Repczynski
Attorney for Respondent: William J. Egan
No. 10 John T. Mitchell v. Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration
Issues – Constitutional Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that personalized vanity plates are a non-public forum in which motorists who pay the fee to express their 7-character message may be censored despite expressing otherwise constitutionally protected private speech? 2) Did CSA err in choosing to censor a Spanish word based on the most offensive definition it could imagine, despite the existence of innocuous definitions of the term?
Attorney for Petitioner: John T. Mitchell (pro se)
Attorney for Respondent: Neil I. Jacobs
AG No. 27 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu
Attorney for Petitioner: Glenn M. Grossman
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel L. Shea
AG No. 54 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Shakaira Simone Mollock
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Shakaira Simone Mollock
No. 94 (2015 T.) Kevon Spencer v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court commit reversible error by reseating three jurors who had been struck by the defense where there was no evidence to support a finding of racial discrimination and where counsel’s explanations advanced the defense’s strategy and have previously been accepted by the courts as valid, race-neutral explanations for striking a juror? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of specific intent for a conviction of attempted second-degree murder?
Attorney for Petitioner: Renee M. Hutchins
Attorney for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.
No. 4 State of Maryland v. Tevin Hines
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a joint trial, was the trial court within its discretion in admitting a co-defendant’s exculpatory statement which did not mention Respondent, but did mention the street where Respondent lived? 2) Was any error in admitting the co-defendant’s statement harmless?
Attorney for Petitioner: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Celia Anderson Davis
No. 2 SPAW, LLC v. City of Annapolis
Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err by failing to dismiss the city’s civil citation for a municipal infraction against Petitioner under § 6-103 of the Local Government Article (“L. G.”) and awarding the city broad injunctive relief? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that abatement of a municipal infraction is not a “penalty” under L. G. § 6-110 for the purpose of applying the one year statute of limitations in § 5-107 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article? 3) Did the trial court err by ignoring newly amended Md. Rules 2-501, which excludes the filing of a motion for summary judgment “after evidence is received at trial on the merits,” when the trial court granted summary judgment in the middle of trial before Petitioner could either respond in writing or present any evidence? 4) Did the trial court err in holding that municipal infractions were civil matters subject to Title 2 of the Md. Rules?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jonathan P. Kagan
Attorney for Respondent: Gary M. Elson
No. 6 William Todd Jamison v. State of Maryland
Attorney for Appellant: Darren M. Welch
Attorney for Appellee: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.
No. 11 Maryland Board of Physicians, et al. v. Mark R. Geier, Personal Representative of the Estate of Anne Geier, et al.
Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court err in rejecting the defendants’ assertion of absolute quasi-judicial immunity and denying reconsideration of its default order on liability? 2) Did the trial court err in compelling the production of personal financial information in aid of punitive damages despite the defendants’ absolute quasi-judicial immunity? 3) Did the trial court err in granting the Respondents’ motion for sanctions based on the Petitioners’ refusal to produce materials protected by the deliberative process, executive, attorney-client, and attorney-work-product privileges and the mandatory nondisclosure requirement of Health Occupations § 14-410?
Attorney for Appellant: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorneys for Appellee: James M. Love and Francis J. Kreysa
No. 52 (2015 T.) State of Maryland v. Tyshon Leteek Jones (Reargument)
Issue – Criminal Law – In deciding this case, should the Court re-consider its holding in Roary v. State, 385 Md. 217, 226-36, 867 A.2d 1095, 1100-6 (2005), as to whether first-degree assault may serve as a predicate for second-degree felony murder?
Attorney for Petitioner: Daniel Jawor
Attorney for Respondent: John N. Sharifi
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 September 9, 2016, the Court will recess until October 6, 2016.
BESSIE M. DECKER