SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2018
Thursday, May 2, 2019:
Bar Admissions
No. 66 Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland v. Perennial Solar, LLC
Issue – Public Utilities – Is local zoning authority preempted by state law with respect to the approval and location of Solar Energy Generating Systems such as the one at issue in this case?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Kirk C. Downey and Kendall A. McPeak
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew F. Wilkinson
No. 73 State of Maryland v. Philip Daniel Thomas
Issue – Criminal Procedure – As a matter of first impression, is a sentence imposed on remand legal if the new sentence imposes the same or fewer years of imprisonment but results in a later parole eligibility date than the original sentence?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Andrew J. DiMiceli and Jer Welter
Attorney for Respondent: Michael R. Braudes
No. 70 Wireless One, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.
Issues – Real Property – 1) Under Real Property Article § 12-201(e)(1)(i)(2), is a person who leaves a publicly funded facility as a result of demolition or rehabilitation excluded from relocation benefits if it leased after the unit of government acquired title to the real property? 2) Has Petitioner stated a claim for an unconstitutional taking?
Attorney for Petitioner: John C. Murphy
Attorney for Respondent: Andre Davis
Monday, May 6, 2019:
No. 76 Luke Daniel Johnson v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland Code Ann., Criminal Procedure, § 6-223(e)(4), which provides that a “finding under paragraph (2) of this subsection … is subject to appeal under Title 12, Subtitle 3 or Subtitle 4 of the Courts Article,” give a right of appeal to a probationer or defendant who receives and enhanced sentence based on a finding under paragraph (2) of § 6-223(e)? 2) Was the evidence presented at the hearing sufficient to rebut the presumption established by paragraph (1) of Crim. Proc. § 6-223(e), after consideration of the factors set forth in paragraph (2)? 3) Did the trial court err when it sentenced Petitioner to life in prison, suspending all but forty-six years with credit for time served, for his first technical violation of probation, without following necessary procedures, including compliance with Crim. Proc. § 6-223(d)(3)?
Attorney for Petitioner: J. Bradford McCullough
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie Williams
No. 77 Donald Eugene Bailey v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court did not illegally impose an enhanced sentence after the State failed to serve timely notice under Md. Rule 4-245(b)? 2) If Petitioner’s sentence was not illegal, did CSA misapply the test for determining whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kiran Iyer
Attorney for Respondent: Peter R. Naugle
No. 74 John Junek v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services
Issue – Family Law – Is intent or scienter an element of child neglect under Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 5-701(s)?
Attorney for Petitioner: William M. Ferris
Attorney for Respondent: Sandra Barnes
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 May 6, 2019, the Court will recess until June 6, 2019.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
CLERK