SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015:
AG No. 58 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Alexander Manjanja Chanthunya
Attorney for Petitioner: Amy S. Paulick
Attorney for Respondent: Alexander Manjanja Chanthunya
No. 15 Kathleen Clough v. Mayor & Council of Hurlock
Issue – Labor & Employment – Does a town charter provision providing that key employees serve at the pleasure of the mayor prohibit the mayor from exercising his or her pleasure by offering a contract of employment to a key employee for a term of years in order to attract a qualified professional to serve in a rural area?
Attorney for Petitioner: Robin R. Cockey
Attorney for Respondent: Victoria M. Shearer
No. 11 Jacqueline Wagner v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is it impossible, as a matter of law, for a person to be guilty of theft from a multiple-party bank account to which she is a party in the absence of any language in the account agreement restricting that party’s use of funds? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support a misappropriation conviction where the state never proved and the court did not find that Petitioner was a fiduciary?
Attorney for Petitioner: Wyatt A. Feeler
Attorney for Respondent: Susannah Prucka
AG No. 40 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Stephen Rand
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Alan M. Wright
AG No. 35 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Mitchell, Jr.
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Michael Mitchell, Jr.
No. 12 George Cameron Seward v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a case of alleged innocence, where the State concedes the new alibi evidence is “material”, can an appellate court rest a decision to reverse the granting of a Writ of Actual Innocence on the belief that trial counsel failed to investigate the alibi, without considering the evidence regarding what counsel did to locate that evidence? 2) Does the State have the right to appeal a trial court decision granting a Writ of Actual Innocence under Md. Code, Criminal Procedure § 8-301 in light of this Court’s prior precedent in Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156 (2011) and the General Assembly’s decision not to put an appellate right into the statute? 3) Did CSA err in mischaracterizing the record evidence and factual findings by the trial court to the extent that CSA’s decision rests on a misunderstanding of the record?
Attorney for Petitioner: Booth M. Ripke
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Ann Ince
No. 17 Timothy Everett Beall v. Connie Holloway-Johnson
Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the “malice implicit” in Petitioner’s actions could support an award of punitive damages, contrary to the long-established law that actual, not implied, malice is needed for an award of punitive damages? 2) Did CSA improperly modify the established definition of the “intent” needed to support claims for battery and for a physical contact in violation of Article 24 of the Md. Declaration of Rights, when it determined that the evidence was sufficient to present the claims to the jury? 3) Did CSA improperly conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support claims for gross negligence, battery and violation of Article 24 when the record was devoid of facts to show intent on the part of Petitioner to cause a collision? 4) Did CSA err by affirming the judgment as to negligence but remanding for further proceedings on the claims for gross negligence, battery and violation of Article 24, thus allowing the pursuit of multiple recoveries of compensatory damages for the single claim arising from the collision? 5) Did Petitioner waive the damages cap and judgment avoidance afforded by the Local Government Tort Claims Act, having failed to raise the defense until after trial and entry of judgment?
Attorney for Petitioner: William R. Phelan
Attorneys for Respondent: Andrew K. O'Connell and William H. Murphy, Jr.
No. 21 Matthew D. Meyer v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a court have authority to restrict a defendant’s driving privileges as a condition of probation where (a) the defendant consents to the condition, or (b) the crime for which probation is imposed is not a traffic offense subject to a “specific statutory scheme of regulation delegated to the executive branch,” such as DUI? 2) If Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), prohibits a court from restricting a probationer’s privilege to drive under the circumstances described above, should Sheppard be overruled?
Attorney for Appellant: Nancy S. Forster
Attorney for Appellee: Todd Hesel
No. 22 State of Maryland v. Helen C. Rivera
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a court have authority to restrict a defendant’s driving privileges as a condition of probation where the crime for which probation is imposed is not a traffic offense, such as DUI, subject to a “specific statutory scheme of regulation delegated to the executive branch?” 2) If Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (1996), prohibits a court from restricting a probationer’s privilege to drive under the circumstances described above, should Sheppard be overruled to recognize the court’s broad authority in matters of sentencing and probation?
Attorney for Appellant: Susannah E. Prucka
Attorney for Appellee: David E. Kindermann
No. 10 State of Maryland, et al. v. Vadim Roshchin, et al.
Issue – Transportation Law – Does a law enforcement officer have the authority to arrest an individual based on probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a misdemeanor aviation offense in violation of Title 5 of the Transportation Article?
Attorney for Petitioner: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan A. Mitchell
No. 13 The Brownstones at Park Potomac Homeowners Association v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association
Issue – Real Property – Whether the first trust lender who takes physical possession of a property subject to a homeowners’ declaration and bylaws is liable for homeowners’ dues?
Attorney for Petitioner: Timothy Guy Smith
Attorney for Respondent: Chad King
No. 9 DeAndre Ricardo Williams v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did police violate Petitioner’s right to remain silent during a custodial interrogation when he said “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know, - “ to which the police responded “But you don’t have to say nothing” but continued with the interrogation? 2) Did the police interrupting Petitioner while he invoked his right to remain silent convert an unambiguous invocation into an ambiguous invocation? 3) Was Petitioner’s confession involuntary under Md. Common law because the police implied that Petitioner might see outside again if he confessed to a robbery gone bad instead of a premeditated murder? 4) Where the officers were still in the process of explaining Petitioner’s rights to him, did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was being interrogated for purposes of Miranda?
Attorney for Petitioner: Deborah S. Richardson
Attorney for Respondent: Michelle M. Martin
No. 18 Board of Education of Howard County v. Howard County Education Association-ESP, Inc.
Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Whether the Public Schools Labor Relations Board must apply the State Board of Education’s interpretation of statutes within its jurisdiction when exercising its authority to determine if a proposed subject of collective bargaining is illegal because it is precluded by statutory law? 2) Whether conflicting interpretations of the Education Article § 6-201(c)(1) and § 6-510(c)(1) can be reconciled?
Attorney for Petitioner: Judith S. Bresler
Attorneys for Respondent: Kristy K. Anderson and Damon R. Felton
No. 16 Corey Jones v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err when it held that the doctrine of laches barred Petitioner from seeking coram nobis relief? 2) Was Petitioner’s guilty plea neither knowing nor voluntary, where he was told that he was pleading guilty to the crime of possession with intent to distribute but a guilty plea was entered to the crime of use of a minor for the purpose of distributing a controlled dangerous substance and where the colloquy was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner understood the nature of the crime?
Attorney for Petitioner: Allison Pierce Brasseaux
Attorney for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.
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 October 6, 2015 the Court will recess until November 5, 2015.
BESSIE M. DECKER