Petitions for Writ of Certiorari - December, 2020


September Term, 2020



Granted December 7 , 2020

Angel Enterprises Limited Partnership, et al v. Talbot County, Maryland, et al - Case No. 45, September Term, 2020

Issues – Local Codes – 1) Did the Board of Appeals (“Board”) violate Petitioners’ due process rights by requiring Petitioners to bear the burden of proof (including the burdens of persuasion and going forward with the evidence) to explain Respondent’s basis for its actions and also to disprove the propriety and amount of Respondent’s civil penalties? 2) Did the Board err in imposing penalties on a daily, continuing basis, including for days when no violative conduct occurred, and while Petitioners were exercising their right to challenge Respondent’s allegations and attempt to impose penalties? 3) Did the Board err in finding that Respondent has the legal authority to impose continuing violation penalties where the Express Powers Act limits the County’s ability to impose fines and does not authorize penalties for continuing violations? 4) Did the Board err in determining that the civil penalties imposed by Respondent were stayed upon the filing of Petitioners’ appeal pursuant to Talbot County Code §§ 58-12A(3) and 20-6B(3)? 5) Are the civil penalties sought by Respondent unconstitutionally excessive in violation of the Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 6) Should an appellate court decide an issue of judicial estoppel that occurred during the judicial review period after an administrative decision (and not remand to the administrative body for review)?

E.N. v. T.R. - Case No. 44, September Term, 2020

Issue – Family Law – When a de facto parentship is formed and fostered at the behest of one legal parent without the knowledge or consent of the other legal parent, does the non-consenting parent retain her superior claim to custody, protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, against the de facto parent, thereby requiring the de facto parent to prove that the non-consenting parent is unfit or that exceptional circumstances exist?

David Esteppe, et al. v. Baltimore City Police Department - Case No. 47, September Term, 2020

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Under the first prong of the scope of employment test, does a police officer act in the scope of employment when he performs traditional law enforcement functions with mixed motives? 2) Did CSA err when it declined to rule upon Respondent’s argument that Petitioner should be judicially estopped from arguing that the officer’s motivation was professional when, at the liability trial, Petitioner argued repeatedly that the officer’s motivation was purely personal and the trial court accepted that argument in order to find the officer liable for civil conspiracy?

Charles Edward Wallace v. State of Maryland - Case No. 46, September Term, 2020

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When reviewing whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel, is it proper for a reviewing court to evaluate prejudice by determining whether deficient performance would have been ameliorated had the error been brought to the trial court’s attention? 2) Did CSA err in advising post-conviction courts that the cumulative effect theory – i.e., the theory that prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), may be found by considering the collective impact of multiple instances of deficient performance – has “exceedingly narrow” application? 3) Did CSA err in holding that defense counsel’s failure to object to an erroneous instruction on attempted second-degree murder required the reversal of only that conviction, that defense counsel did not prejudice Petitioner when she failed to object to the disclosure to the jury that Petitioner had previously been convicted of a crime of violence, and/or that trial counsel’s failure to object to alleged bad-acts/other-crimes evidence constituted neither deficient performance nor conduct prejudicing Petitioner?



Denied December 21, 2020

Barber, Gregory v. State - Pet. Docket No. 326
Barton, Willie v. Md. Parole Commission - Pet. Docket No. 320
Barton, Willie v. Secretary, DHMH - Pet. Docket No. 321
Blackston, James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 170
Brutus 630 v. Harford Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 302
Burton v. Intelligence & Investigative Div. - Pet. Docket No. 323
Bush, Patrick v. State - Pet. Docket No. 316
Bynum v. Green - Pet. Docket No. 306
Caruso v. Hartenstine - Pet. Docket No. 277
Chen v. Turner - Pet. Docket No. 325
Collins, James v. State - Pet. Docket No. 335
Cousins, Earl S. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 334
French, Mark v. State - Pet. Docket No. 330
Grady Management v. Birru - Pet. Docket No. 332
Hamilton v. Rottenberg - Pet. Docket No. 329
Hejazi v. Sears - Pet. Docket No. 328
Herold v. Herold - Pet. Docket No. 336
In Re: J.T. - Pet. Docket No. 333
In the Matter of Roussos - Pet. Docket No. 240
Jacobs, Russell Kurt, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 310
Jones, Jeffrey Ricardo, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 347
Long, Dontai v. State - Pet. Docket No. 288
Metro Prop. Mgmt. & Investment v. Mudd - Pet. Docket No. 318
Perry, Lionel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 311
Popkin v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn. - Pet. Docket No. 338
Robinson v. Baltimore City Police Dept. - Pet. Docket No. 337
Shirani, Ardeshir Shawn v. State - Pet. Docket No. 290
Smith v. Griffiths - Pet. Docket No. 314
Valleys Planning Council v. 2627, LLC - Pet. Docket No. 307
Walker v. Bolton MCU - Pet. Docket No. 236
Walker, Steven v. State - Pet. Docket No. 327
Wright, Walter Lee v. Dept. of Safety & Corr. Servs - Pet. Docket No. 343