Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2017

 

Thursday, February 1, 2018:

Bar Admissions

AG No. 5 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gregory Allen Slate

Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Gregory Allen Slate

No. 37 Brian Grimm v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a defendant challenges the reliability of a drug-sniffing dog overall and the reliability of the dog’s alert to the possible presence of drugs in a vehicle driven by the defendant, in accordance with Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), and the trial court rules that the dog’s alert established probable cause to search the vehicle, what is the applicable standard of appellate review? 2) Whatever standard of review applies, did the trial court err in ruling that the police had probable cause the search the vehicle driven by Petitioner? 3) Even if the police did not have probable cause to search Petitioner’s car, should this Court decline to apply the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule because the police relied on the drug-sniffing dog’s alert in objective good faith?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey Mark Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel Jawor

 

Friday, February 2, 2018:

No. 51 Heather Stanley Christian v. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Associates of Maryland, LLC, et al.

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA apply the correct legal standard in affirming, in part the trial court’s prior determination that Petitioner did not have a good faith basis under Md. Rule 1-341 to bring a claim for fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation and wrongful termination/constructive discharge where CSA viewed the record in the light most favorable to Respondent, ignored evidence and inferences that supported Petitioner’s good faith basis to bring those claims, and did not instruct the trial court to review on remand the entirety of information supporting Petitioner’s claims rather than solely the evidence admitted at trial? 2) Should this Court adopt the legal standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011) in determining the movant’s burden of proof for establishing damages for a claimed violation of Md. Rule 1-341, namely that where a complaint contains both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, the movant may only recover attorney’s fees which would not have been incurred but for the frivolous claims?

Attorney for Petitioner: John Joseph Beins
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew Blake Schulwolf

No. 50 Robert Wheeler v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where the defendant in a criminal case makes a timely and proper demand under Courts & Jud. Proc., §§ 10-1002 and 1003, for the presence of all persons in the chain of custody, is it legal error for the trial court to admit drug evidence where the State fails to call the “packaging” officer as a witness; or as CSA held in this case, is the admission of drug evidence under such circumstances subject to review for abuse of discretion? 2) Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of the drug evidence in view of the lack of a proper chain of custody?

Attorney for Petitioner: Peter F. Rose
Attorney for Respondent: Gary Edward O'Connor

 

Monday, February 5, 2018:

AG No. 97 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ross D. Hecht

No. 48 Rina Calvo v. Montgomery County, Maryland

Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Where the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission is statutorily presumed to be correct and the appellate courts have held that whether an injury “arose out of and in the course of employment” constitutes a question of fact, should the trial court’s grant of summary judgment where Petitioner prevailed before the Commission be reviewed? 2) Should this Court review the holding that, as a matter of law, the “special mission” exception to the “going and coming” rule cannot be considered, notwithstanding that Petitioner was on her way to a different assignment, at a different work site, at the direction of her employer, in the furtherance of her employer’s business, and on her normal off day? 3) Given MD case law holding an injury compensable when it occurs in a place the employee would not have been “but for” her employment and/or while engaged in an activity “incidental” to her employment and Petitioner was involved in an accident only because she was traveling to training at the direction of her employer, did CSA err in finding that Petitioner’s claim was not “in the course of” her employment?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Kenneth M. Berman and Natalie Elizabeth Whittingham
Attorney for Respondent: Wendy Beth Karpel

No. 53 Thoyt Hackney v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the “prison mailbox rule,” under which a pleading is deemed to have been filed by a pro se prisoner when the prisoner delivers the pleading to prison authorities for mailing, apply to the filing of a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim. Proc. § 7-103(b), which states that unless “extraordinary cause is shown,” a petition “may not be filed later than 10 years from the imposition of sentence,” and Md. Rule 1-322(a), which states that pleadings “shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court”? 2) Under the “extraordinary cause” provision of § 7-103(b), is the ten-year deadline for filing a petition for post-conviction relief tolled or otherwise extended when a pro se prisoner delivers his or her petition to prison authorities for delivery to the post-conviction court prior to expiration of the ten-year deadline? 3) Did the post-conviction court err in dismissing Petitioner’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief on grounds that it was not timely filed within the ten-year deadline where Petitioner was sentenced on October 23, 1998, his petition includes a certificate of service dated October 20, 2008, his petition was postmarked October 22, 2008, and date-stamped as received by the clerk’s office on October 24, 2008, and Petitioner was incarcerated when he filed his petition?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey Mark Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Edward J. Kelley

 

Tuesday, February 6, 2018:

No. 54 Daniel Carter v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a juvenile homicide inmate have standing to challenge a life sentence he is presently serving based on Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), on the theory that the sentence does not afford him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation and the sentencing judge did not comply with the process set forth by those cases to insure that such a sentence is only imposed on the rare incorrigible juvenile offender, and is such a challenge ripe for review? 2) Do life sentences imposed on juvenile offenders in Md. afford them a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation? 3) If so, did the sentencing judge consider the distinctive and mitigating aspects of youth in the manner required by Miller and Montgomery (and made retroactive by the latter) to ensure that such a sentence was imposed only on the rare incorrigible juvenile homicide offender?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian Matthew Saccenti
Attorneys for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.

No. 55 James E. Bowie v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a juvenile nonhomicide inmate have standing to challenge his life sentence under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and its progeny? 2) Are life sentences for nonhomicide crimes committed by a child unconstitutional because Md. Law does not afford the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” required by Graham?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian Matthew Saccenti
Attorneys for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.

No. 56 Matthew Timothy McCullough v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the reasoning of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and its progeny apply to a 100-year sentence that is the aggregate of shorter sentences for multiple crimes committed during the same incident? 2) If so, did the 100-year sentence in this case afford the juvenile nonhomicide offender the “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” required by Graham? 3) May challenges to parole policies be raised as a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian Matthew Saccenti
Attorneys for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.

No. 57 State of Maryland v. Phillip James Clements

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal? 2) Did the trial court err in considering, and granting, Respondent’s motion to set aside an “illegal” sentence?

Attorney for Petitioner: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.
Attorneys for Respondent: Brian Matthew Saccenti

 

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 February 6, 2018, the Court will recess until March 1, 2018.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK