September 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants

On September 22, 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted a number of Petitions involving issues related to criminal procedure, contract interpretation, choice of law, and statutory interpretation. The issues presented are as follows:

State of Maryland v. Steven Anthony Thomas – Case No. 15, September Term, 2023 (and conditional cross-petition)

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland Rule 4-345(e), which states that a court “may not revise the sentence after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed,” mean that a court may not revise a sentence under Rule 4-345(e) after the five-year period expires? 2) Where a defendant timely files a motion to modify under Maryland Rule 4-345(e) and repeatedly requests a hearing on the motion, is the trial court required to exercise its discretion within five years, i.e. either deny the motion without a hearing or hold a hearing to determine whether to grant the motion, or does the rule permit the court to let the five years lapse without exercising discretion?

Adventist Healthcare v. Steven S. Behram – Case No. 16, September Term, 2023 (and cross-petition)

Issues – Health Occupations – 1) Did the ACM err by relying on extrinsic evidence in its interpretation of the fully integrated Settlement Agreement without determining whether the Agreement is ambiguous or considering the effect of its integration clause in contravention of settled Maryland law? 2) Did the ACM err by failing to apply standard principles of contract interpretation, by interpreting a Settlement Agreement that expressly releases claims related to three specific events, as unambiguously releasing claims related to other events, and thereby exclude extrinsic evidence that showed that the parties did not intend to release claims related to those other events?

Doctor’s Weight Loss Centers, Inc., et al. v. Shelly Blackston – Case No. 17, September Term, 2023

Issue – Torts – Did ACM utilize the correct standard for determining when a cause of action manifested itself to determine the correct choice of law using the lex loci delicti rule?

Bethesda African Cemetery Coalition, et al. v. Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County – Case No. 18, September Term, 2023

Issues – Business Regulations – 1) Did the ACM err in holding that §5-505 of the Business Relations Article of the Md. Code is nothing more than a “quiet title” statute, providing land owners with an optional proceeding that they may choose to institute when selling land containing a burial ground if they wish to convey a “clean” title to the realty? 2) Under Maryland law, does a court of equity need to assess whether (and if so, on what conditions) a property owner can sell land containing a burial ground for non-burial use in view of the 1829 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Beatty v. Kurtz, which (applying Maryland law) charged courts of chancery operating pursuant to their equity powers “to preserve the repose of the ashes of the dead and the religious sensibilities of the living,” as well as subsequent decisions by this Court and other courts?