PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2024
Granted June 27, 2025
Miguel Angel Santana v. State of Maryland – Case No. 19, September Term, 2025
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should Maryland’s double jeopardy common law bar retrial after a mistrial requested by the defendant where the mistrial was caused by the State’s recklessness? 2) In light of the clear evidence that the State’s recklessness caused the mistrial, should this Court reverse the denial of Petitioner’s motion to dismiss?
Gary Wilson v. Tanglewood Venture, LP – Case No. 20, September Term, 2025
Issues – Real Property – 1) May a court, upon request of an unlicensed landlord, require a tenant to pay rent under the rent escrow law, Md. Code, Real Property § 8-211? 2) For the purposes of determining an on-the-record versus de novo appeal, how is the amount in controversy determined in an escrow matter when the Parties’ claims differ from the amount of rent ordered to be placed into escrow and the amount placed in escrow? 3) Is an appeal of a rent escrow matter moot if, even though dangerous conditions continue unabated, the landlord agrees on appeal not to seek the rent for the unlicensed period subject to escrow or if there are collateral consequences to the trial court’s dismissal of the escrow?
Carefirst BlueChoice, Inc. v. Matthew Skipper, et al. – Case No. 21, September Term, 2025
Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did ACM err when it applied the incorrect standard to its analysis of whether Respondents’ complaint stated claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation? 2) Did ACM erroneously conclude that the Respondents’ claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation did not fail as a matter of law based on a misinterpretation of COMAR § 31.11.06.06(B)(11) and Md. Insurance Administration Bulletin 13-01? 3) Did ACM err when it held that the mere possibility that Respondents could be entitled to pre-judgment interest is sufficient to confer standing and seek class certification under Md. law? 4) Did ACM err when, relying on Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 430 Md. 144 (2013), it found Respondents had standing to pursue their claims against Petitioner?
Donte Demont Strand v. State of Maryland – Case No. 22, September Term, 2025
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a theft prosecution, where the State alleges a specific item stolen, but fails to prove what was stolen, should trial courts apply an essential element variance analysis or a substantial prejudice variance analysis? 2) If the trial courts apply a substantial prejudice variance analysis, was Petitioner misled such that he could not lodge an effective defense or exposed to double jeopardy where the State alleged specific items stolen but failed to prove the identity of what was taken? 3) Where an indictment for theft alleges specific items stolen but fails to prove the identity of the item stolen, is the evidence sufficient to convict? 4) Where the consolidated theft statute defines property as “anything of value”, is it a rational inference that any unidentified tangible item has value because every tangible item invariably has an ascertainable replacement cost, or does the value of an item require some evidence?
Denied/Dismissed June 30, 2025
The order denying or dismissing the below petitions can be found here.
6525 Belcrest Road v. Dewey, L.C. – Pet No. 65 *
Adventist Healthcare v. Jabbi – Pet No. 44 *
Anderson, James Russell v. State – Pet No. 60 *
Beasley, Andre M. v. State – Pet No. 68 *
Brown, Marc Christopher, Jr. v. State – Pet No. 48 *
Burrell, Shade v. State – Pet No. 55 *
Butler, Dionysus Rodnell, Jr. v. State – Pet No. 74 *
Byrne v. Yarrington – Pet No. 50 *
Derr v. Portner – Pet No. 67 *
Gee, Adrian v. State – Pet No. 86 *
Gross v. Souder – Pet No. 59 *
Harford Memorial Hospital v. Jones – Pet No. 58 *
Hernandez, Marles Antonio v. State – Pet No. 89 *
Hinton v. Correct RX Pharmacy Servs. – Pet No. 26 *
Hughes v. Brown – Pet No. 72 *
In re: Estate of Mirmiran – Pet No. 75 *
In re: Kl.D., Kt.D., F.D., & T.D. – Pet No. 70 *
In the Matter of Hargrave – Pet No. 41 *
In the Matter of Roskiewicz – Pet No. 57 *
Jackson, Dorrell v. State – Pet No. 493
Jackson, Sabreena v. Parker – Pet No. 25 *
KB Sons Properties v. Prince George’s Cnty. – Pet No. 38 *
Knox v. Southern Management Corp. – Pet No. 28 *
Koultatsos v. Neofitou – Pet No. 53 *
Morrison, Abras v. State – Pet No. 62 *
Ndubueze v. Ndubueze – Pet No. 54 *
Newton, Gary Q. v. State – Pet No. 69 *
Nieves v. Barker – Pet No. 66 *
Parker, Wayne v. State – Pet No. 33 *
Vo v. Mid-Atlantic Real Estate Investments – Pet No. 39 *
* September Term 2025