March 2018 Maryland Certiorari Grants

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals granted six writs of certiorari – all for the September 2018 Term – including Frederick and Carroll Counties’ separate challenges to state regulation of stormwater runoff collection, the impact of technical difficulties in a correctional officer’s termination hearing, and whether a medical prescription is inadmissible hearsay when offered as a defense to the possession of controlled dangerous substances offense.

Baltimore City Detention Center v. Michael Foy – Case No. 3, September Term, 2018

(Reported CSA Opinion by Harrell, J.)

Issue – Correctional Services – Where, due to an equipment malfunction, a correctional officer’s penalty-increase meeting with the appointing authority was not contemporaneously recorded, did CSA err in concluding that the recording failure was incurable, even though the Department otherwise complied with all of the statutory procedures for terminating a correctional officer for misconduct?

Frederick County, Maryland v. Maryland Department of the Environment – Case No. 7, September Term, 2018

(On Bypass from the Circuit Court for Frederick County)

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Has MDE exceeded its authority by imposing conditions in the Permit that exceed the “maximum extent practicable” standard mandated by the Clean Water Act? 2) Has MDE acted unlawfully by imposing requirements in the Permit that are impossible to achieve within the five-year permit term? 3) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 4) Has MDE improperly subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 5) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill a portion of its Permit obligations using water quality trading as a compliance method?

Philip Paul Ingram, Jr. v. State of Maryland – Case No. 4, September Term, 2018

(Unreported Per Curiam CSA Opinion)

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does § 7-104 of the Criminal Law Article provide independent authority for a court to order restitution in a theft case or, alternatively, is a court’s authority to order restitution constrained by the restitution provisions in Title 11 of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Where a defendant is convicted of theft, may a sentencing court order the defendant to make restitution when neither the victim nor the State has requested restitution?

Maryland Department of the Environment v. County Commissioners of Carroll County, Maryland – Case No. 5, September Term, 2018

(On Bypass from the Circuit Court for Carroll County – Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted prior to review by the CSA)

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 2) Has MDE unlawfully subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and by subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 3) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill its Permit obligations in part by using water quality trading as a compliance method? 4) Has MDE violated state law by incorporating and amending Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 1-406 through the Permit?

Wilfredo Rosales v. State of Maryland – Case No. 6, September Term, 2018

(Unreported CSA Opinion by Graeff, J.)

Issue – Criminal Law – Were the complainants prior convictions for committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity admissible for the purposes of impeachment under Md. Rules 5-609?

State of Maryland v. Steven Young – Case No. 2, September Term, 2018

(Reported CSA Opinion by Raker, J.)

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in determining that Respondent preserved a claim that the trial court erred in excluding written prescriptions for controlled dangerous substances where the record does not contain a copy of the written prescriptions or any proffer or any information that could support a finding that they were authentic? 2) If preserved, did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in excluding the prescriptions because there was not sufficient evidence that they were authentic? 3) Did CSA err in determining that prescriptions offered to show that controlled dangerous substances were obtained “by prescription or order from an authorized provider acting in the course of professional practice” did not constitute hearsay on the basis that they were not offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted”?

 

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: