November 2013 Certiorari Grants

The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari in 12 cases on Friday, November 22, 2013. Consistent its new policy of deciding all cases in the same term in which they were argued, the Court designated 11 of the 12 cases for the Court’s September 2014 Term. The one case assigned to the present September 2013 Term involves issues similar to a certified question that the Court has designated for argument in May 2013.

John S. Burson, et al. v. Jeffrey G. Capps – Case No. 2, September Term, 2014

Issues – Financial Institutions – 1) Whether a Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”) Notice of Rescission can be effective to cancel a loan transaction that has not yet taken place, and remain effective despite the issuing party’s subsequent acceptance of the benefits of the transaction? 2) Whether a TILA action filed in December 2009 on the basis of a Notice of Rescission issued in April 2007 was untimely as beyond the one-year statute of limitation in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)? 3) Whether rescission is an available remedy when the trial court has no jurisdiction over either the original lender or its assignee because all claims against both have been dismissed, with no appeal taken from that dismissal?

Quioly Shikell Demby v. State – Case No. 11, September Term, 2014

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Were Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights violated when an officer, pursuant to a valid arrest, read text messages to and from others located on his cell phone without a warrant? 2) Are the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrines applicable where an officer, using information found by warrantlessly searching an individual’s cell phone, later obtains a search warrant for that cell phone’s contents?

Deborah Hiob v. Progressive American Insurance Company – Case No. 4, September Term, 2014

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a partial voluntary dismissal can constitute an appropriate “separate document” for the purpose of Maryland Rule 2-601 even though that document is not signed by the clerk or the court? 2) Whether judgment was entered on the date the clerk entered the court’s order entering judgment and whether the notice of appeal filed prior to that docket entry is a premature appeal saved by the provisions of Rule 8-602(d)?

John Roe v. Gary D. Maynard – Case No. 103, September Term, 2013

Issue – Criminal Law – In light of the requirement imposed by federal law that each state maintain an online registry of sex offenders residing in the state and the obligation imposed on convicted sex offenders by federal law to register in the state where they reside, did the circuit court lack authority to direct the State to remove Mr. Roe from databases maintained in compliance with federal law, irrespective of his challenge to registration requirements imposed by MD law?

Dwayne Steven Spence v. State of Maryland – Case No. 7, September Term, 2014

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) May a police officer search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone as a search incident to arrest without a warrant? 2) Does a trial judge’s announcement that a jury trial waiver is “freely and voluntarily given” comply with Rule 4-246(b)’s requirement that the court “determine[] and announce[] on the record that the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily”?

State of Maryland v. Joe Frank Berry, Jr. – Case No. 10, September Term, 2014

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did Valonis & Tyler v. State of Maryland, 431 Md. 551 (2013) abolish the contemporary-objection rule as it applies to Rule 4-246(b)’s announcement requirement? 2) When a trial court fails to comply with Rule 4-246(b)’s announcement requirement is the appropriate remedy a limited remand?

State of Maryland v. Robert Louis Costen, III – Case No. 5, September Term, 2014

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that in Valonis & Tyler v. State of Maryland, 431 Md. 551 (2013) this Court held that “the absence of any objection to the circuit court’s lack of strict compliance with the announcement requirement of Rule 4-246(b) did ‘not preclude appellate review’”? 2) If the lack of an announcement as required by MD Rule 4-246(b) was not waived, is the reversal of Respondent’s lawful convictions the only appropriate sanction for a non-substantive violation of Rule 4-246(b) or is a limited remand to the trial court appropriate in order to allow the trial court to confirm that it found Respondent’s waiver of the right to a jury trial to be knowing and voluntary or state that it is unable to provide such confirmation?

State of Maryland v. Rony Ribioberto Gomez – Case No. 8, September Term, 2014

Issue – Criminal Law – Is a limited remand the appropriate remedy for non-compliance with Rule 4-246(b)’s announcement requirement?

State of Maryland v. Sean Adam Griffin – Case No. 1, September Term, 2014

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that in Valonis & Tyler v. State of Maryland, 431 Md. 551 (2013) this Court held that “failure to object to a defect in this [Rule 4-426] process does not constitute a waiver”? 2) If the lack of an announcement as required by MD Rule 4-246(b) was not waived, is the reversal of Respondent’s lawful convictions the only appropriate sanction for a non-substantive violation of Rule 4-246(b) or is a limited remand to the trial court appropriate in order to allow the trial court to confirm that it found Respondent’s waiver of the right to a jury trial to be knowing and voluntary or state that it is unable to provide such confirmation?

State of Maryland v. Jonathan Johnson – Case No. 3, September Term, 2014

Issue – Criminal Law – Is a “suggestion” by the defendant that the victim’s mental health records may contain information that is either exculpatory or relating to the victim’s “propensity for veracity,” not sufficient, under Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md. 112 (1995), to “call for an in camera review” of those records?

State of Maryland v. Mitchell Gaston Reid – Case No. 9, September Term, 2014

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did Valonis & Tyler v. State of Maryland, 431 Md. 551 (2013) abolish the contemporary-objection rule as it applies to Rule 4-246(b)’s announcement requirement? 2) When a trial court fails to comply with Rule 4-246(b)’s announcement requirement is the appropriate remedy a limited remand?

State of Maryland v. Langley Eugene Willis – Case No. 6, September Term, 2014

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did Valonis & Tyler v. State of Maryland, 431 Md. 551 (2013) abolish the contemporary-objection rule as it applies to Rule 4-246(b)’s announcement requirement? 2) Did the trial court satisfy Rule 4-246(b)’s announcement requirement when it conducted an inquiry into the voluntariness of the jury waiver and announced that Respondent “voluntarily waives a jury trial[]” and later conducted an inquiry into whether the waiver was made knowingly and asked, “Knowing that, do you still want to be tried by the Court without a jury[]”? 3) If the trial court failed to satisfy Rule 4-246(b)’s announcement requirement, is the appropriate remedy a limited remand? 4) Where the recodification of Article 27, Section 277(p) failed to retain language that was fundamental to this Court’s holding in Davis v. State, 319 Md. 56 (1990) – that the offense of possession of equipment to produce a controlled dangerous substance applies only to equipment possessed by a manufacturer – should this Court reconsider its holding in Davis?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: