Close

Colors

Text Size

-A A +A
  Opinions Search   Search Tips

Court of Appeals Webcast Archive 2019 Term

 

Webcasts and the archived recordings of webcasts are made available to the general public for informational purposes only and do not constitute an official record of court proceedings. Recording or copying of any portion of the live webcast or the archived recording of a webcast is prohibited without the express permission of the Supreme Court, which can be obtained by contacting Government Relations and Public Affairs at 410-260-1488 or at communications@mdcourts.gov. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.

 

June 2020 Schedule
Due to the COVID-19 emergency, Case Number 71a19, Gregory Johnson v. Maryland Department of Health, which was previously scheduled for oral arguments on Friday, May 1, 2020, and AG Number 21a19, Attorney Grievance Commission v. John Xander Yi, which was previously designated for oral arguments in the June Session, will be scheduled for Wednesday, June 10, 2020. See the May 18, 2020 Administrative Order Rescheduling May Oral Arguments and Postponing Other Oral Arguments.

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in the oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible. 
Date Docket # Title
06-10-2020 AG No. 21 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Xander Yi
 
06-10-2020 No. 71 Gregory Johnson v. Maryland Department of Health

Issues – Health – General – 1) Did Respondent impermissibly decide issues of competency in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights when it used an administrative process to forcibly medicate Petitioner for competency restoration based on a statute that omits language authorizing involuntary medication for that purpose? 2) Did Respondent violate the U.S. Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights, which guarantee a criminal defendant certain due process and trial rights, when it forcibly medicated Petitioner after an administrative proceeding that prohibited him from asserting affirmative defenses related to his competency to rebut Respondent’s case and denied him meaningful access to his criminal defense attorney?  
May 2020 Schedule
Due to the COVID-19 emergency, the cases that were previously scheduled for Oral arguments for Thursday, April 30, 2020, and were previously postponed by Administrative Orders filed on March 17, 2020, March 31, 2020 and April 28, 2020, are rescheduled for Thursday, May 28, 2020, beginning at 10:00  a.m., to be heard by videoconferencing. See the May 18, 2020 Administrative Order Rescheduling May Oral Arguments and Postponing Other Oral Arguments.

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in the oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible. 
Date Docket # Title
05-28-2020 Misc. No. 10 Desiree Berry and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and casualty Co. v. Andrae Queen, and others similarly situated

Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Question - Whether the Maryland Uninsured Motorist statutory provision of Md. Code Ann. Ins. § 19-509(e)(1), and the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article and Title 20 Subtitle 6 of the Insurance Article incorporated therein, require an insurer to pay benefits for loss of use of a vehicle damaged by an uninsured driver, regardless of any limitations or omissions that may exist in the applicable policy of insurance.  
05-28-2020 No. 63 Maryland Insurance Administration v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.

Issue – Insurance – Does the Maryland Uninsured Motorist statutory provision of Md. Code (2017) § 19-509(e)(1) of the Insurance Article, and the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article and Title 20 Subtitle 6 of the Insurance Article incorporated therein, require an insurer to pay benefits for loss of use of a vehicle damaged by an uninsured driver, regardless of any limitations or omissions that may exist in the applicable policy of insurance?
05-28-2020 AG No. 2 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David Elliott Frank
 
April/May 2020 Schedule
Due to the COVID-19 emergency, the arguments originally scheduled for April, 2020 were rescheduled for May 11, May 12, and May 13, 2020. See the April 28, 2020, Amended Administrative Order on Rescheduling April Oral Arguments and Postponing May Oral Arguments.

These oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. All seven incumbent judges of the Court of Appeals participated in the rescheduled April oral arguments. Due to the videoconferencing platform used, not all participants are visible. 
Date Docket # Title
05-13-2020 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?
05-13-2020 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?  
05-12-2020 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 07.02.11.28, 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?
05-12-2020 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?  
05-11-2020 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?  
March 2020 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
03-10-2020 No. 57 Shawn Albert Franklin v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is it ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel to include in a timely filed motion for modification of sentence a request for a hearing accompanied by a request that the matter be held sub curia but to never secure an actual hearing on that motion in court in the ensuing five years as required by Md. Rule 4-345(e) in order to have the sentence actually modified? 2) Is a finding that it does not constitute ineffective assistance inconsistent with CSA’s decision in Moultrie v. State, 240 Md.App. 408 (2019)?  
03-10-2020 No. 52 Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland

Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Does a takings claim under the Maryland Constitution accrue at the time of a stayed administrative decision or at the time of a final judicial decision affirming that result? 2) May a regulatory taking become permanent and stabilized before a court of proper jurisdiction determines the validity of the regulation effecting the taking? 3) Should Petitioner’s takings claim be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to raise this constitutional issue in any administrative proceeding? 4) Did the decision of the Harford County Board of Appeals prohibiting a proposed use of Petitioner’s land to protect the public constitute a taking for which compensation is due? 5) Does the jury’s damages award as compensation for an unconstitutional taking contravene Maryland law when the damages are not the fair market value of Petitioner’s land but are, instead, the capitalized profits of a hypothetical business?  
03-10-2020 No. 60 Pablo Javier Aleman v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Md. Code (2018 Repl. Vol.) §3- 112 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which requires the commitment to the Department of Health of a defendant found not criminally responsible, does not apply to a defendant who is in Maryland under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), Md. Code (2017 Repl. Vol) §8-401 et seq. of the Correctional Services Article? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the IAD requires that Petitioner, who was found not criminally responsible by a Maryland jury, must be returned to the sending state to complete a sentence in that state? 3) Did CSA err in holding that § 8-408 of the IAD, which states that “[n]o provision of this Agreement. . . shall apply to any person who is adjudged to be mentally ill,” was not triggered by the jury’s verdict that Petitioner was not criminally responsible?  
03-09-2020 No. 61 Motor Vehicle Administration, et al. v. Karl Geppert

Issues – Transportation – 1) Did CSA lack jurisdiction to consider Respondents challenge to Petitioner’s refusal to issue him a learner’s permit where Md. Code (2014) §10-223(a) of the State Government Article excluded from that court’s jurisdiction cases “aris[ing] under Title 16 of the Transportation Article” - the Article governing issuance of learner’s permits? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that a circuit court possess the authority to order an executive agency to perform an act that is directly contrary to Maryland law?  
03-09-2020 No. 55 John Vigna v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err by contradicting the majority of other jurisdictions in holding that appropriate interaction with children is not a pertinent character trait under Md. Rule 5-404(a)(2)(A)? 2) Did CSA err when it failed to recognize that denying Petitioner the ability to introduce relevant character evidence, while at the same time allowing Respondent to introduce non-criminal “bad acts” character evidence, denied him the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?  
03-09-2020 No. 54 State of Maryland v. Hayes Sample

Issues – Criminal Law – Did CSA err by holding that the mere abstract possibility of unauthorized access to Respondent’s social media account barred any reasonable juror from finding that he was responsible for the account entry in question?  
03-05-2020 Bar Admissions
 
03-05-2020 AG No. 3 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mohamed Alpha Bah
 
03-05-2020 No. 56 State of Maryland v. Muriel Morrison

Issue – Criminal Law – Was the evidence sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that Respondent was guilty of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment in the death of her infant beyond a reasonable doubt?  
03-05-2020 No. 53 Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Prime Realty Associates, LLC

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Does Md. Rule 3-124(o), allowing for substituted service of process on the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT”), provide due process? 2) Did the trial court err by invalidating, on due process grounds, an order ratifying the sale of a vacant property when Respondent claimed lack of notice but Petitioner effectuated substituted service on SDAT and Respondent’s lack of notice resulted from its failure to provide SDAT a current, lawful address for its resident agent?  
February 2020 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
02-10-2020 No. 49 In the Matter of Bernard L. Collins

Issues – Workers’ Compensation – Did the release in the settlement agreement between Mr. Collins, Huntingtown Volunteer Fire Department, Chesapeake Employers’ Insurance Company and Selective Insurance Company operate to bar Mrs. Collins’ subsequent claim for death benefits under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act?  
02-10-2020 Misc. No. 6

Please note: This case was consolidated for oral argument with No. 51. The linked recording is the same for both.		 Baltimore City Police Department, et al. v. Ivan Potts
Question - Whether, under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act and related contractual provisions, in light of the undisputed facts in the record, the three former Baltimore City Police officers named in this action are entitled to indemnity for the judgment entered against them herein; that is, whether, as a matter of law on the undisputed facts, the judgment sought to be enforced by Plaintiff is based on "tortious acts or omissions committed by the [officers] within the scope of [their] employment with [the City]."
 
02-10-2020 No. 51

Please note: This case was consolidated for oral argument with Misc. No. 6. The linked recording is the same for both.		 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Estate of William James, By Its Personal Representative, Menyonde Lewis

Issue – Torts – Under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act and related contractual provisions, in light of the undisputed facts in the record, are the three former Baltimore City Police officers named in this action entitled to indemnity for the judgment entered against them herein; that is, as a matter of law on the undisputed facts, is the judgment sought to be enforced by Plaintiff based on "tortious acts or omissions committed by the [officers] within the scope of [their] employment with [the City]?  
02-07-2020 No. 46 Teddy Shannon v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should Petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of a regulated firearm, after a disqualifying conviction for possession with intent to distribute, be affirmed, notwithstanding the drafting error in Count Five of the indictment which mislabeled the disqualifying conviction – ‘to wit: 05/09/2008, Possession with Intent to Distributed, Case No.: 107312013’ – as a “crime of violence”? 2) Did the CSA err in holding that the original indictment charged a violation of Public Safety Article (“P.S.”), §5-133(c)(1)(i), and that an amendment with Petitioner’s consent was necessary to change the character of that predicate offense to a violation of P.S. §5-133(c)(1)(ii)?  
02-07-2020 No. 47 Stanley Rochkind, et al. v. Starlena Stevenson

Issues – Torts – 1) Was it error for the trial court to allow Plaintiff’s medical causation expert to testify that Plaintiff has attentional and behavioral injuries without providing a reliable method for attributing those injuries to lead exposure when Plaintiff had already been diagnosed with ADHD? 2) Was it error for the trial court to allow Plaintiff’s medical expert to render specific causation opinions based on general epidemiological studies? 3) Should the Court adopt the standard for admitting expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)? 4) Was Plaintiff’s medical causation expert’s specific causation opinion admissible in this case under Rule 5-702, applying the standard set forth in Daubert?  
02-07-2020 No. 48 Jonathan Hemming v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a trial court have discretion under Md. Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial? 2) Did the trial court mistakenly believe that it had no authority under Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial and, as a result, fail to exercise its discretion under the rule? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court recognized and exercised its discretion, was the court’s refusal to bifurcate the counts charging possession of a regulated firearm by a disqualified person and possession of ammunition by a disqualified person from the remaining counts of the indictment an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case?  
02-06-2020 Bar Admissions
 
02-06-2020 AG No. 65 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Samuel Edward Hensley
 
02-06-2020 No. 41 Pizza Di Joey, LLC and Madame BBQ, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Issues – Local Code – Does Baltimore City Code, Art. 15, Section 17-33 violate Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?  
02-06-2020 No. 45 State of Maryland v. Kaleem Michael Frazier

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court reconsider the rule articulated in State v. Lancaster, 332 Md. 385 (1993), and hold that where two offenses are deemed the same for purposes of merger, a court may impose a sentence based on the offense that carries the greater penalty? 2) If the Court permits a sentencing court to impose a sentence available pursuant to a lesser-included offense, even if it provides the greater penalty, was Respondent’s sentence legal?  
02-06-2020 No. 50 American Radiology Services, LLC, et al. v. Martin Reiss

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in interpreting and extending Copsey v. Park, 453 Md. 141 (2017), to require a medical malpractice defendant arguing non-party negligence to present standard-of-care expert testimony where the defendant is not asserting non-party negligence as an affirmative defense? 2) Assuming arguendo that it was error for the trial court to submit the question of non-party negligence to the jury, did CSA err in concluding that the error was prejudicial based solely on an initially incorrectly completed juror questionnaire that was promptly corrected?  
January 2020 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
01-10-2020 AG Nos. 8 & 64 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Arlene Adasa Smith-Scott
 
01-10-2020 No. 40 Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange, et al. / Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al. 

Issues – Torts – 1) Do Landowners owe their neighbors a duty of care to protect against potential fires starting in normal, harmless areas of their property, such as landscape mulch, caused by third persons over whom they have no control? 2) Does a Plaintiff need to provide expert testimony as to reasonable, standard and effective measures to prevent such fires? 3) Under the facts and circumstances of this case, was the spoliation instruction unfairly prejudicial to the appellants? 4) Was is proper for the trial court to enter summary judgment on an indemnity agreement where the contention was that the negligence was that of third parties whose activities were related to the indemnitor and where there were questions of fact with regard to whether the contract had expired?  
01-10-2020 No. 32 Jimmie Rogers v. State of Maryland, et al.

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When Petitioner pled guilty to an offense under a statute requiring no proof of the victim’s age and no proof of age is provided, does the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services have the authority to make an ex parte finding of fact that the victim is a minor and, thus, order Petitioner to register as a tier II sex offender? 2) Assuming arguendo that the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services has the authority to make ex parte findings of fact regarding the age of the victim, what level of proof is required and who may make the ultimate determination of fact? 3) Did CSA correctly apply settled law when it reversed the trial court’s order granting Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, where Petitioner failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that he is not required to register as a sex offender based upon his conviction for human trafficking in violation of Criminal Law § 11-303? 4) Is Petitioner’s separation-of-powers argument both unpreserved and meritless? 5) Is Respondent entitled to summary judgment where Petitioner did not genuinely dispute Respondent’s evidence proving that the victim of the human trafficking offense was a minor, thus establishing as a matter of law that Petitioner was required to register as a sex offender based upon his conviction of human trafficking in violation of Criminal Law § 11-303?  
01-09-2020 AG No. 18 (2018 T.) In the Matter of Stanley Howard Needleman
 
01-09-2020 No. 44 Rasherd Lewis v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the odor of marijuana on a person, without more, constitutes probable cause to arrest? 2) When a majority of a CSA panel concludes that its decision “will result in injustice,” should the court exercise its discretion under Maryland Rule 8-131 and address a constitutional question, which the parties fully briefed in the absence of a preservation challenge, about whether incontrovertible body-camera evidence demonstrates the “seizure” or a person without probable cause?  
01-07-2020 No. 42 David R. Faulkner v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the lower courts err in evaluating the cumulative impact of multiple discrete but complementary items of newly discovered innocence evidence? 2) Did the lower courts err in evaluating the impact of newly discovered third-party guilt evidence? 3) Did the lowers courts err by holding that evidence was not “newly discovered” for purposes of Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure, §8-301, because defense counsel failed to investigate an incomplete summary of a witness statement, where the State suppressed a videotaped statement by that witness with material additional information?  
01-07-2020 No. 43 Jonathan D. Smith v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) In considering a Writ of Actual Innocence, did the lower courts err in their evaluation of third-party perpetrator evidence? 2) Did the lower courts err in their evaluation of impeachment evidence that speaks to actual innocence?  
01-06-2020 Bar Admissions
 
01-06-2020 No. 33 Crystal Linton, et al. v. Consumer Protection Divisions

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) May class members in a class action lawsuit lawfully release and assign to others their right to receive money or property sought for their benefit by Respondents or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“the CFPB”) through those agencies’ separate enforcement actions under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act or the Consumer Financial Protection Act? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s final approval order and holding that class members’ right to receive money or property in the class action was not purely personal and private to those members, such that they could not release and assign those rights to others? 3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in approving the class action settlement? 4) As a matter of first impression, did a court-approved settlement agreement, in which class members voluntarily forewent and assigned away any benefit Respondent may someday obtain on the restitution claim it asserted in order to obtain a guaranteed financial recovery, interfere with Respondent’s public enforcement authority when Respondent’s restitution theories, if successful and recoverable, would exclusively benefit the class members? 5) Does the equitable one satisfaction rule, as discussed in the Court’s recent opinion in Michele Gallagher v. Mercy Medical Center, Inc., 463 Md. 615, 207 A.3d 634 (2019), preclude class members from receiving both financial restitution and common law damages? 6) In certifying and approving a class action settlement that compensates class members in an amount equivalent to only about 4% of the financial harm they suffered as a result of their transactions with Access Funding, a Petitioner, did the trial court err in declining to require submission of evidence to support its factual findings, including its findings that defendants-appellees are insolvent? 7) In approving a class settlement that purports to “release” Access Funding’s principals, not only from any liability to class members but also from liability to two government agencies with claims pending against them, did the trial court err in holding that it had “no basis” to consider whether the “released” principals have financial resources to satisfy a judgment on, or contribute to a settlement of, the claims from which they were “released”? 8) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in approving, through a judicial opinion drafted for it by counsel, a class settlement in which (a) absent class members, more than 70% victims of lead poisoning, receive compensation equivalent to only four cents for each dollar of financial harm they suffered, (b) the amount of the settlement fund is less than available insurance proceeds and the defendants would not make any direct contribution to the settlement fund, and (c) Access Funding would purportedly be “released” from making any restitution through pending lawsuits filed by Respondents and the CFPB? 9) Did the trial court err in granting approval to a private class settlement that requires class members to transfer back to Access Funding any payment rights that are restored to them, without compliance with Maryland’s structured settlement transfer law? 10) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to class counsel, where counsel sought no discovery and engaged in no litigation adverse to Access Funding after filing plaintiffs’ complaint; admitted that their class claims, had they been adjudicated, likely would have been barred by the defendants’ unanswered petitions to compel arbitration; recovered only $750,000 of the $17.7 million in total financial harm incurred by class members; and obtained this “recovery” principally by “settling” the separate, pending claims of Respondent and the CFPB? 11) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in approving a settlement notice that used complex legal jargon and failed to inform absent class members of the implication of the settlement?  
01-06-2020 AG No. 53 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Charles Darrow Yates

 
01-06-2020 No. 39 Larry Daniel Bratt v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does the failure of a sentencing judge to award a defendant mandatory credit against the sentence for time served in custody prior to trial render the sentence illegal and subject to correction under Maryland Rule 4-345(a)? 2) What is the proper remedy to correct the illegality when a sentence does not reflect the proper credit? 3) Is the claim that a sentencing court failed to comply with Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-218(e) properly raised in a Rule 4-345(a) motion when the court’s alleged failure to do so is a procedural flaw, i.e., not the result of a determination by the court that the defendant is not entitled to any or only partial credit for time that the defendant spent in pre-sentencing detention? 4) Where the defendant alleges that the sentencing court failed to comply with Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 6-218, and there is no dispute that the defendant is entitled to the credit that he or she requests, must the defendant seek correction of the procedural flaw by filing a Rule 4-351 motion or may the defendant seek the same relief by filing a Rule 4-345(a) motion?  
December 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
12-10-2019 No. 30 Darlene Barclay v. Sadie M. Castruccio

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err when it ruled that the cause of action for intentional interference with an expectancy is not a cause of action under Maryland law? 2) Did Petitioner adequately plead facts to succeed on a claim of intentional interference with an expectancy?  
12-10-2019 No. 31 Yaw Poku Podieh v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When the plain language of the immigration statutes is clear, must counsel correct a client’s known erroneous belief regarding the availability of immigration defenses following a plea to an aggravated felony? 2) Does the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply to immigration advice obtained to assist in evaluating a plea offer? 3) Did CSA wrongly overturn the post-conviction court’s findings of facts and misapply the third prong of the Mickens v. Taylor, 240 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2001)(en banc), aff’d 535 U.S. 162 (2002), test governing conflict of interest claims?  
12-10-2019 No. 36 Carlos Couret-Rios v. Fire and Police Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baltimore

Issue – Local Codes – Did the hearing examiner commit an error of law when she awarded line-of-duty disability benefits based on a finding of fact that Petitioner suffered from attention and memory deficits as a result of a traumatic brain injury sustained while performing his job?  
12-09-2019 AG No. 1 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jonathan Christian Dailey
 
12-09-2019 No. 34 Latashia Pettiford v. Next Generation Trust Service

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the district court err by failing to dismiss Respondent’s summary ejectment complaint when Respondent had not obtained, prior to renting the property to Petitioner, a permit required by law for the property to be occupied? 2) Did the district court err when it effectively denied Petitioner the opportunity to assert a warranty of habitability defense and denied Petitioner’s attempted rent escrow defense? 3) Did the circuit court erroneously affirm the district court’s entry of a consent judgment after Petitioner raised multiple defenses, had not come to any agreement with Respondent, and neither party had requested entry of a consent judgment?  
12-09-2019 No. 13 Won Bok Lee v. Won Sun Lee

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) When a judgment has been entered properly in a trial court’s electronic case management system in compliance with Maryland Rule 2-601(b)(2), must the docket entry and its date of entry also be identified clearly on the Case Search feature of the Judiciary website in order for there to have been an “entry” of the judgment to begin the 30-day time period in which an appeal must be filed? 2) When a federal court judgment is recorded and entered in a Maryland circuit court, may the state court judgment be renewed independently of any renewal of the federal court judgment?  
12-06-2019 AG No. 44 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gregory J. Milton
 
12-06-2019 No. 26 In re: O.P.

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Is the preponderance of the evidence standard adopted by the intermediate appellate court inconsistent with the plain language and protective purpose of the shelter-care statute? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the juvenile court did not commit error and abuse its discretion when it denied the local department’s petition to place in shelter care an infant who had suffered unexplained brain injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma and whose parents had delayed seeking medical treatment for four full days after the infant had stopped breathing for several minutes? 3) Does the appellate court have jurisdiction over a State appeal from an order denying a request for shelter care? 4) Given the fundamental, Constitutional right that parents and children have to an intact family free from unwarranted governmental interference, must the juvenile court apply a clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, rather than a mere reasonable basis standard, during a shelter care hearing, where the State seeks to separate children from their parents due to an alleged need to prevent serious, immediate harm?  
12-06-2019 No. 38 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Margaret Shilling

Issue – Insurance – Did CSA err in holding that the statute of limitations for an underinsured motorist claim starts to run on the date a plaintiff executes a release with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier, thereby allowing a plaintiff to unilaterally determine when the statute of limitations runs, prejudicing defendants?  
12-05-2019 Bar Admissions
 
12-05-2019 AG No. 62 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. William Clark Planta
 
12-05-2019 Misc. No. 3 William H. Plank, II, et al. v. James P. Cherneski, et al.

Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals Questions - 1) May minority members of an LLC (a) bring a stand-alone cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against the managing member of the LLC (b) premised on allegations that the managing member was engaged in unlawful actions that placed at risk the investments of the minority members? 2) If so, is such a claim (a) limited to allegations that would support another viable cause of action, (b) limited to allegations that would not also support another viable cause of action, or (c) not limited by whether or not there is another viable cause of action to address the same conduct?  
12-05-2019 No. 35 Estate of Jeffrey Blair by Personal Representative Tiauna Blair v. David Austin

Issue – Torts – Did CSA err when, based solely on their interpretation of the video evidence that the jury considered in reaching its verdict, it overturned the jury’s factual finding that Respondent exceeded the level of force that an objectively reasonable officer in his situation would have used?
November 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-05-2019 AG No. 77 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jason Edward Rheinstein
 
11-05-2019 No. 25 State of Maryland v. Hussain Ali Zadeh

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a jointly tried defendant claims that there were too many limiting instructions for a jury to effectively follow, should the reviewing court first consider whether the limiting instructions were justified by non-mutually admissible evidence? 2) When a warrant authorizes the seizure of certain evidence from a car, and an officer, during a lawful frisk of the driver, feels evidence that falls within the warrant, does the plain-feel doctrine permit the seizure of that evidence?  
11-05-2019 No. 24 Patrick Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Issue – Insurance Law – Does Maryland Law construe Respondent’s 1974 insurance policies as promising to pay the judgment in full, contrary to the law of some other states?  
11-04-2019 AG No. 40 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Anne Margaret Miller
 
11-04-2019 No. 23 Gables Construction, Inc. v. Red Coats, Inc., et al.

Issue – Torts – As a matter of first impression, did CSA err in holding that a defendant can be liable for joint tortfeasor contribution even though it is not liable to the injured person in tort by virtue of a contractual waiver of claims covered by insurance?  
11-04-2019 No. 28 Anthony Marlin Tunnell v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Is the 180-day deadline set forth by Md. Rule 4-271 and Md. Code (2008 Repl. Vol.) § 6-103 of the Criminal Procedure Article, known as the ‘Hicks Rule,’ tolled while the State awaits the results of DNA testing?  
10-31-2019 Bar Admissions
 
10-31-2019 No. 22 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Brian J. Barrett
 

Issue – Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that a driver detained for driving under the influence of alcohol failed to rebut a police officer’s certification that he was fully advised of the administrative sanctions of Md. Code (2018 Supp.) §16-205.1 of the Transportation Article after being given a copy of the DR-15 Advice of Rights form, which the officer read aloud to him, and thereafter asked the motorist seven times if he wanted to take a test for alcohol concentration, which the motorist refused?
10-31-2019 No. 29 State of Maryland v. Christopher Mann

Issues – Criminal Law – Did CSA err when it held that defense counsel’s failure to request an alibi jury instruction was prejudicial, for the purpose of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), when the presence of that instruction would not have presented a likelihood of a different outcome of the trial?  
10-31-2019 No. 27 Bettye Jean McFarland v. Baltimore Community Lending, Inc.

Issues – Financial Institutions – 1) For joint-ownership bank accounts, should the “equal share” approach apply under Maryland law to impose a rebuttable presumption that all account holders own equal shares of the funds held in a joint account? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving (by clear and convincing evidence) that she was the sole owner of her social security and pension retirement funds in the bank account?  
October 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
10-08-2019 No. 19 Credible Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Emmanuel Johnson

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did the trial court erroneously apply Md. Rule 7-113(f) when it reviewed the district court’s construction of a contract’s terms for clear error rather than de novo? 2) Did the plain terms of the parties’ promissory note (“Note”) entitle Petitioner to a judgment against the Respondent? 3) In interpreting the Note, did Maryland law require the trial court to choose the one among two possible readings of the Note that was consistent with the parties’ intent?  
10-08-2019 No. 14 Elijah Peterson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Is post-conviction relief available to a person who has been convicted of a crime, found to be not criminally responsible, and is either committed to a psychiatric hospital or on conditional release? 2) Is coram nobis relief available to a person who has been convicted of a crime, found to be not criminally responsible, and is either committed to a psychiatric hospital or on conditional release? 3) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, who was convicted of a crime and found not to be criminally responsible and was on conditional release, was not eligible to collaterally challenge his convictions by either a post-conviction petition or a petition for writ of coram nobis?  
10-08-2019 No. 21 Starr Neal, et al. v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court’s order granting a Motion to Enforce Judgments against a school board pursuant to Md. Code (2013 Repl. Vol.) §5-518 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) was barred by res judicata? 2) May a judgment solely against a school board employee be levied against a school board pursuant to CJP §5-518?  
10-07-2019 No. 16 Randy R. Pinner v. Mona H. Pinner, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore City abuse its discretion in holding that an out-of-state defendant had sufficient contact through her attorneys for specific personal jurisdiction under the Maryland long arm statute for failing to name a use plaintiff and give the notice required by Md. Rule 15-1001 in a protracted, still continuing wrongful death case that the out-of-state resident initiated in the same Maryland court and from which she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements?  
10-07-2019 No. 11 Tshibangu Kazadi v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is a criminal defendant entitled, upon request, to voir dire questions aimed at identifying prospective jurors who are unable or unwilling to apply the principles that the State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is presumed innocent, and that the defendant has the right to remain silent and refuse to testify and that no adverse inference may be drawn from the defendant’s silence? 2) Where a critical State’s witness reveals pretrial that she and her minor child, also a witness, are subject to a deportation order, must the State provide in discovery the witness’s Alien Number and a copy of the deportation order so that defense counsel may identify potential impeachment evidence as described in Maryland Rules 5-608(b) and 5-616(a)(4)? 3) Where defense counsel has a good-faith basis to believe that critical State’s witnesses are the subject of deportation orders, is defense counsel entitled to cross-examine those witnesses about their immigration issues pursuant to Maryland Rules 5-608(b) and 5-616(a)(4), the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?  
10-07-2019 No. 15 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Ariel A. Medvedeff

Issue – Transportation – Is it error for an administrative law judge to impose credibility determinations and inferences from circumstances at the scene of a drunk driving arrest in making a legal determination that the detaining officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect that the person sitting in the driver’s seat after a traffic stop was driving and, therefore, that the officer could not request that the detainee take an alcohol concentration test under Transportation Art. § 16-205.1?  
10-04-2019 No. 17 Minh-Vu Hoang v. Jeffrey Lowery

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA ignore established precedent and rules of statutory construction in holding that the tolling statute provided for under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-202 indefinitely tolled, until the closure of the bankruptcy case, actions only against debtors denied a discharge in bankruptcy? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that the policy of the tolling statute should apply to cases where the debtor is denied a discharge, did CSA err in holding 1) that the statute applied to the creditor’s failure to renew his judgment; and 2) that the tolling should continue until the closure of the bankruptcy case?  
10-04-2019 No. 20 Romechia Simms v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) In order to issue a hospital warrant, which initiates the process of revoking conditional release granted to individuals who have been found guilty but not criminally responsible, does a trial court only have to find probable cause to believe that the individual violated a term of the conditional release order, or does the court also have to find probable cause to believe that the individual poses a danger to self, others, or property? 2) In order to comply with constitutional due process, must §3-121 of the Criminal Procedure Article be interpreted to require that a hospital warrant may be issued only where the warrant-issuing court finds probable cause to believe that the patient poses a danger to self, others, or property?  
10-02-2019 Bar Admissions
 
10-02-2019 No. 4 Robin Bartlett Frazier v. James McCarron, et al.

Issues – General Provisions – 1) For the imposition of a public fine under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”), must the public body not only “willfully” meet “with knowledge” that its meeting is in violation of the Act, but also have a nefarious motive? 2) When the OMA is violated, but a trial court erroneously finds no violation, is that error “harmless” with respect to enforcing the Act? 3) Should the OMA be strictly construed to limit a public body’s actions to the closed meeting exceptions it publicly discloses prior to the meeting?  
10-02-2019 No. 12 Brian Wynne, et al. v. Comptroller of Maryland

Issue – Taxation – Did the trial court correctly hold that Section 16 of the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2014 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, even though it reduces the interest on tax refunds paid to a discrete class of taxpayers engaged in interstate commerce?  
10-02-2019 No. 18 Motor Vehicle Administration v. John W. Pollard

Issues – Transportation – Was the administrative law judge in error to believe that a drunk driving suspect who refused a test for alcohol concentration could avoid a license suspension by asserting the defense he was “sheltering” in a vehicle without regard to the detaining officer’s reasonable grounds to believe that the motorist had been driving his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol?  
September 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-10-2019 Misc. No. 30 (2018 T.) Randy Morquell Brown v. State of Maryland; Gianpaolo Bottini v. State of Maryland; Kitrell B. Wilson v. State of Maryland

Certified Question from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) Does the authority granted to the courts by Criminal Law Article § 5-609.1 to modify mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related offenses extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements and the State does not consent to modification? 2) Does the authority granted to the Courts by § 5-609.1 to modify such sentences extend to cases in which the sentences were imposed as the result of binding plea agreements in which the defendant waived his or her right to seek a modification of sentence? 3) Does § 5-609.1 require the circuit court to hold a hearing before granting or denying a motion to modify a sentence filed pursuant to the statute? 4) When does the Court of Special Appeals have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order denying a § 5-609.1 motion to modify a sentence?  
09-10-2019 No. 2 Telos Corporation v. Seth W. Hamot, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Does Maryland law apply “more relaxed standards of proof with regard to the proof of the amount of damages,” in intentional interference cases, in order that the “wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created”? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to apply those “relaxed standards of proof” when considering the evidence of Petitioner’s damages resulting from Respondents’ intentional interference with Petitioner’s contract with its auditor?  
09-10-2019 No. 9 Dana T. Johnson, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Section 5-612 of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits possession of certain quantities of controlled dangerous substances, provides that “[a] person who is convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and is subject to a fine not exceeding $100,000.” What is the maximum allowable period of incarceration for a violation of this law? 2) Did the circuit court impose an illegal sentence of fourteen years of incarceration for a violation of section 5-612 of the Criminal Law Article?  
09-09-2019 AG No. 21 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jude Ambe
 
09-09-2019 No. 8 Danny Trotman v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – As an issue of first impression, may a judge who retired in 2014, over defense objection, excuse for cause multiple veniremen who claim to be unable to climb 25 stairs, while refusing to consider possible accommodations for dealing with the veniremen’s disabilities or health problems, in a circuit court that has 35 judges and comprises two large courthouses?  
09-09-2019 No. 5 Andrews & Lawrence Professional Services, LLC and Galyn Manor Homeowners Association, Inc. v. David O. Mills, et ux.

Issue – Commercial Law – The Maryland Consumer Protection Act “does not apply to” the “professional services” of a lawyer. In view of this exemption, can an attorney’s client be deemed to have violated the Act, or otherwise be subject to a claim for damages, based solely on the conduct of its attorney that, absent the attorney’s exemption, would, arguendo, constitute a violation of the Act?  
09-06-2019 Misc. No. 1 In the Matter of the Application of G.L.F. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
09-06-2019 No. 6 Joshua Sabisch v. Stephen T. Moyer et al. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, while on probation before judgment and required as conditions of his probation to obey all laws, to have no contact with the victim, to have no unsupervised contact with children under age eighteen, to provide his current address to probation authorities, to register as a sex offender, and to report by telephone to his probation supervisor in Maryland every thirty days while residing in Michigan and to follow his supervisor’s lawful instructions, was not entitled to petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc, § 3-702, because he was not subject to “physical” restraint? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, while on probation before judgment, was not entitled to petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 3-702, because he was not present in Maryland at the time of the filing of his petition and because the conditions of Petitioner’s probation did not create a sufficient “presence” in Maryland while Petitioner was residing in Michigan? 3) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on grounds that Petitioner accepted probation before judgment and waived his right to appeal pursuant to § 6-220?  
09-06-2019 No. 7 Daniel Joseph Greene v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a case of first impression, did CSA err in holding that Maryland adopts the “confirmatory identification” line of out-of-state cases that exempt from pre-trial constitutional review of “non-selective” identifications? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s suppression of the identification of Petitioner, where police procedures used to obtain the identification violate due process? 3) Did CSA err in alternatively holding that the trial court failed to examine the appropriate factors in ruling the identification was inadmissible?  
09-05-2019 Bar Admissions
 
09-05-2019 AG No. 26 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kenneth Steven Kaufman
 
09-05-2019 No. 1 State of Maryland v. Aaron Terrell Alexander

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does section 6-233(a) of the Criminal Procedure Article, which allows a trial court to terminate a probation, permit that court to dismiss a violation of probation (“VOP”) petition filed by the State simply because the violation alleged is technical and the probationer served the equivalent of the presumptive penalty in custody awaiting the hearing on the VOP petition? 2) In any event, where the record shows that the trial court was mistaken in concluding that Respondent’s probation had expired, did the trial court err in closing the probation?  
09-05-2019 No. 3 Goshen Run Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Cumanda Cisneros

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does a confessed judgment clause in a promissory note/forbearance agreement involving homeowners association assessments that expressly preserves the right of the defendant to assert legal defenses, violate the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”)? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that homeowners association assessments are consumer debts within the meaning of the CPA, if the consideration given by a payee to a promisor in a promissory note is the forbearance of debt collection activity on the antecedent debt, does such a promissory note relate to a “consumer transaction” under the CPA? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the answer to the first question is affirmative, was it appropriate for the district court to invoke a severability provision in the note, sever the confession clause, and proceed to a trial on the merits, because the CPA does not provide the remedy of voiding contracts? 4) Did the circuit court misapply Maryland law when it determined that after a confessed judgment is vacated, it is impermissible to permit a trial on the merits on an amended complaint, as that would constitute “another bite at the apple,” and that such complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 3-611(b)?