Argument Schedule -- April, 2020



September Term, 2019


(Rescheduled for May 11, 2020, May 12, 2020 and May 13, 2020 by Administrative Order)


Monday, May 11, 2020:

No. 65 Walter Elenils Portillo Funes v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to exclude the chemical breath test, where Spanish-speaking Petitioner was advised of his right to decline the test in English? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to exclude the standardized field sobriety tests, where Petitioner was a Spanish speaker but the tests were performed in English?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Menelik Coates


Tuesday, May 12, 2020:

No. 58 In Re: R.S.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Did CSA err in interpreting the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Md. Code (2019 Repl. Vol.) § 5-601 – 5-611 of the Family Law Article (“ICPC”), and invalidating COMAR, based on the holding that the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state parents, even those unknown to the child and local department or who have abused or neglected a child, and therefore the ICPC cannot be used in a CINA proceeding to assist juvenile courts in protecting a child’s best interests where a parent resides in another state? 2) Did CSA err in reversing both the juvenile court’s order that R.S. was a CINA and the award of joint custody of R.S. to her father and paternal grandparents, based on the holding that the juvenile court should not have ordered an investigation under the ICPC of a non-custodial father who had never met the two-year old child?

Attorney for Petitioner: Janet Hartge
Attorney for Respondent: Deborah A. Ullmann

No. 66 7222 Ambassador Road, LLC v. National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, Inc.

Issue – Civil Procedure – Did CSA err when it affirmed the trial court’s ruling excluding all of Petitioner’s witnesses in the absence of the complaining party having filed any motion to compel or any motion for sanctions and when the trial court failed to consider or address any prejudice to the complaining party?

Attorney for Petitioner: Stanford G. Gann, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Cullen B. Casey


Wednesday, May 13, 2020:

No. 67 State of Maryland v. James Kareen Day

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Must a criminal defendant seeking a belated motion for modification or reduction of sentence pursuant Md. Rule 4-345(e), based on ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, establish in the post-conviction court that he or she specifically directed trial counsel to timely file that motion? 2) Did CSA err when it reversed, as clearly erroneous, the post-conviction court’s finding that Respondent had failed to provide competent evidence that he had asked his trial counsel to file a motion for modification or reduction of sentence on his behalf?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Karinna M. Rossi
Attorney for Respondent: Brian Saccenti

No. 59 75-80 Properties, L.L.C., et al. v. RALE, Inc., et al.

Issues – General Provisions – 1) On a petition for judicial review of land use approvals, must the reviewing court evaluate an ex parte violation through the narrow lens of “procedural error”, as expressly prescribed by Md. Code (2014) §§ 5-859 and 5-862 of the General Provisions (“GP”) Article? 2) On a petition for judicial review, may a court vacate county approvals, including an executed Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (“DRRA”), based solely on the County’s violation of GP §5-862, when the statute expressly provides that the only remedy in the land use context is remand? 3) Does zoning estoppel apply where developers, acting in good faith, substantially relied on, and partially performed under, fully-vetted county approvals and an executed DRRA, and the misconduct stems solely from the government’s actions?

Attorney for Petitioner: Louis J. Rouleau
Attorneys for Respondent: Michele McDaniel Rosenfeld and Kurt J. Fisher



Pursuant to the April 28, 2020 Amended Administrative Order on Rescheduling April Oral Arguments and Postponing May Oral Arguments, the cases that were previously scheduled for oral arguments for Thursday, April 2, 2020 and Friday, April 3, 2020, and were previously postponed by Administrative Order filed on March 17, 2020, are rescheduled for Monday, May 11, 2020, Tuesday, May 12, 2020, and Wednesday, May 13, 2020, beginning at 10:00 a.m., to be heard by videoconferencing.