June 2018 Maryland Certiorari Grants

On Friday, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari in three criminal cases and two civil cases. The grants are below.

Gerald Hyman v. State of Maryland – Case No. 18, September Term, 2018
(Unreported CSA Opinion by Berger, J.)

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that sexual offender registration is not a direct consequence of a third-degree sex offense? 2) Did CSA incorrectly assume that Petitioner understood the consequences of sexual offender registration despite never being advised? 3) Did CSA err by giving Petitioner an illegal sentence derived from an ambiguous plea agreement? 4) Where Petitioner filed a 2006 pro se coram nobis petition that did not include the claims raised in his 2013 petition, did CSA err when it found that Petitioner had not waived the 2013 claims?

Malik Small v. State of Maryland  – Case No. 19, September Term, 2018
(Reported CSA Opinion by Leahy, J.)

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable?

State of Maryland v. Kevin Sewell – Case No. 18, September Term, 2018
(Reported CSA Opinion by Raker, J.)

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court grant review to resolve a conflict among opinions in CSA by adopting a principle of narrow construction with respect to the marital communications privilege? 2) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion by allowing the State to introduce text messages that Respondent sent to his wife’s cell phone?

The Town of Forest Heights v. The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, et al. – Case No. 21, September Term, 2018
(Bypass Petition)

Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err when it invalidated two Resolutions of Petitioner that, collectively, annexed into the Town approximately 737 acres of land without the consent of the owners of 25% of the assessed value of the lands annexed by each Resolution, where all the annexed lands were tax-exempt, were unoccupied, and where, consistent with City of Salisbury v. Banker’s Life, 21 Md.App. 396 (1974), the owners of the land were not required to provide their consents to the annexations? 2) Did the trial court err when it determined that a portion of the Town’s Annexation Plan violates Md. Code Local Government Article, § 4-104(b), and Land Use Article, § 17-303(a), and, as a result, ordered that the Town may not exercise law enforcement on any land owned by Respondent?

WV DIA Westminster, LLC v. Mayor & Common Council of Westminster – Case No. 22, September Term, 2018
(Bypass Petition)

Issues – Local Government – 1) When a local government conducts a quasi-judicial hearing and vote, can it prevent judicial review by recasting its ultimate written decision as legislative in nature? 2) Does the phrase “regardless of zonal classification” in Westminster Code § 164-133B permit use of zonal classification as a guideline? 3) Does Westminster Code §164-188J(1) permit the Council to rely on an informal trend that is not part of “the general plan, the City’s capital improvements program or other applicable City plans and policies”? 4) Is the proper remedy vacatur or outright reversal?

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: