Boundless at the Trial Level, Toothless on Appeal: Maryland’s Law on Sentencing.
A few weeks ago, our Editor-in-Chief, Steve Klepper, wrote a piece entitled “Mental Illness and Maryland’s Toothless Review of Criminal Sentences” regarding the unreported decision, Robbins v. State. In Robbins (Nazarian, J.), the Court lamented, in dicta, about the lack of meaningful appellate review of a classic “over-sentence” for a defendant who suffered from severe mental health issues. In contrast, on March 8, 2023, the Appellate Court of Maryland chose to report Robson v. State, ACM-REG-0764-2022) (Moylan, J.) a decision affirming the trial court’s sentence that was substantially above the State’s recommendation, and without any of the regrets expressed in Robbins. Robson precisely makes Mr. Klepper’s point: a sentencing judge has boundless discretion and the appellate court’s review is toothless. Robson also suggests that changes in the status quo is unlikely without legislative action or new caselaw emanating from the Supreme Court of Maryland.
Read More…Kenneth Ravenell seeks Rehearing En Banc
On May 9, 2023, Kenneth Ravenell filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc of the panel majority’s holding that Mr. Ravenell was not entitled to a jury determination on the applicability of the statute of limitations after Mr. Ravenell raised the defense at trial.
By way of background, Mr. Ravenell was acquitted of six of the seven charges against him, the sole count of conviction was for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). At trial, Mr. Ravenell moved for judgment of acquittal arguing, inter alia, that the government had not proven that the money laundering conspiracy lasted into the applicable statute of limitations period, past July 2, 2014. The district court denied the motion for acquittal, finding that the government had shown evidence of acts associated with the conspiracy past July 2, 2014, and that there was no evidence of withdrawal from the conspiracy on Mr. Ravenell’s behalf. At the end of the defense case, Mr. Ravenell renewed his motion which the court again denied.
Read More…The Practical and Historical Rationales for the “Supreme Court of Maryland” with “Justices”
By Michael Wein[*]
The title “Supreme Court” today seems like a natural and organic name to call the highest appellate court in a State. An historical refresher of the name helps explain why Maryland did not originally call its High Court the “Supreme Court of Maryland.” That is, until the recent Constitutional Amendment was approved by Maryland voters and officially adopted on December 14, 2022.
When the United States was founded, Colonial appellate courts previously existed, tracing to at least the 1600s, well before the United States Supreme Court. The “United States Supreme Court,” as a title, was developed as part of the United States Constitution drafted in 1787 and Congress’ 1789 Judiciary Act. The first “Session” with Supreme Court Justices later began in 1790. See Dallas Reports of Cases Ruled and Adjudged in the Several Courts of United States and of Pennsylvania, Vol. II, 1798, Pg. 399.
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts colonies were the first American colonies with defined appellate courts, though functioned a bit differently than today. For example, when Maryland was ready to join the United States proper, as the 7th Admittee to the Union, the Maryland colony changed the Court’s name, as well, from the “Provincial” Court to the “Court of Appeals of Maryland,” as part of Maryland’s 1776 Constitution. Maryland’s original appellate courts were titled as the “Provincial” appellate court and arguably began with a law passed in 1637 or 1638, though weren’t established before about 1642, with further changes enacted in the 1660s and 1690s. See, e.g., Wilson v. Simms, 380 Md. 206, 220 (2004) (J. Battaglia, discussing Maryland’s appellate court history, which included the then-nascent province of Maryland establishing a system of oversight with a mixture of executive and judicial functions, including appellate jurisdiction, which mirrored the Common Law system of England); see also The Maryland Court of Appeals-A Bibliography of Its History, 1987 (Compiled by Michael S. Miller, Director, Maryland State Law Library); The Court of Appeals of Maryland, A History, Bond, Carroll T. (Chief Judge of the Court), Baltimore, (1928), pg. 1.
Read More…March 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants (Part 3)
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari in one case, which presents novel questions under the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2022. It is scheduled to be argued in September.
Read More…More March 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants (Updated)
On March 7, 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in an additional two cases (one criminal appeal and one civil appeal), which have been assigned for argument during the September 2023 Term. Those cases, with questions presented, are below. Also, on March 6, the Supreme Court granted review in one more case, an expedited civil appeal about whether a schoolteacher may serve on the Harford County Board of Education.
Read More…SCM to Hold Arguments Outside Annapolis Once Per Year
By Tia L. Holmes
On March 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland issued an Administrative Order declaring that the Court will sit temporarily outside of the City of Annapolis at least one day each term beginning with the September 2023 Term. In the Order, the Supreme Court designates secondary or post-secondary educational institutions within Maryland as their locations of choice. The Court will first sit at an institution located in the Fourth Appellate Judicial Circuit (Prince George’s County), which is represented by Justice Michele D. Hotten, and will rotate in numerical order of the circuits in the future terms. According to the Order, Justice Hotten will recommend an institution to host the oral arguments, and, upon approval of the full Court, the Court will sit at the recommended location.
Read More…Whren, Whren, Go Away . . .
By Tia L. Holmes[*]
Early last month, the Appellate Court of Maryland issued its unreported opinion in Snyder v. State, App. Ct. of Md., Sept. Term 2021, No. 1127 (Feb. 3, 2023). Snyder involved a pretextual traffic stop that the Court concluded was authorized by Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). During the traffic stop, Mr. Snyder’s vehicle was searched, and the fruit of that search led to his arrest and subsequent conviction. The Court reversed Mr. Snyder’s conviction because the evidence that was used to convict him had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Concurring with the Court’s decision, Judge Dan Friedman wrote separately to express his views regarding Whren and to urge the Supreme Court of Maryland to abandon the failed federal doctrine established in Whren.
In a previous post about the Snyder opinion, Maryland Appellate Blog editor Chris Mincher left an open invitation for a discussion about Judge Friedman’s concurrence. I accepted his invitation because, in my opinion, Judge Friedman’s concurrence is the most important part of the Court’s decision.
Read More…Lessons After the First 60 Days of 2023 with the Appellate and Supreme Courts of Maryland
As most people know, in November 2022, Maryland voters approved a constitutional amendment changing the names of the appellate courts. On December 14, 2022, the switch flipped—the Court of Appeals became the Supreme Court of Maryland, and the Court of Special Appeals became the Appellate Court of Maryland. Judges of the Supreme Court of Maryland became “Justices.”
Whether you welcomed this change because it reduces confusion (“wait, so the Court of Special Appeals hears everything?”) or you were fine with the old names and saw no reason to upset the apple cart, the deed is done. Supreme Court of Maryland and Appellate Court of Maryland it is. The only question at this point is one that Steve Klepper wrote about back in December: how to refer to the appellate courts in the past tense?
When Steve wrote his post, the name change was not yet official, and the courts had offered no guidance. We thought perhaps there would be an official policy statement, or a style guide expressing preferences based upon the circumstances. To my knowledge, no such policy or statement of preferences has been issued. What we have now that we didn’t have in December, however, is opinions written by the courts under the new name regime. I have done an unofficial survey of the opinions (published and unpublished) written between December 14, 2022 and February 8, 2023. Here is what I learned:
Read More…Argument Panel: Proposed New Rule on Citing Unreported ACM Opinions
“After much debate,” the 214th Report of the Maryland Rules Committee proposes to amend Rule 1-104, which has long prohibited citation to unreported Maryland appellate decisions as precedent or as persuasive authority. The new Rule 1-104(a)(2)(B) would provide that, unless “designated as a per curiam opinion, an unreported opinion of the Appellate Court issued after [effective date of Rule] may be cited for its persuasive value only if no reported authority adequately addresses an issue before the court.” The comment period ends March 1, 2023, and the proposal will then go to the Supreme Court of Maryland for its consideration.
In what is hopefully the first of a recurring feature, we’ve polled our editorial board to get their views of the new rule.
Read More…Maryland Supreme Court to Consider New Rules Allowing For First Time, Full Citation For Persuasive Value to Most Unreported Opinions
By Michael Wein
For the first time, the Maryland Rules Committee has recommended Unreported Opinions in Maryland be cited for “persuasive value” under Maryland Rule 1-104. Part of the given Rule change’s rationale, was the Maryland Supreme Court does not consider itself as limited in citations, as at Maryland’s intermediate Appellate Court of Maryland. See Blog post dated 2/19/2020 discussing apparent contrary use of unreported opinions by Maryland Supreme Court. There remains some uncertainty as to the final version, as described below. This comes after a September 2022 Rules committee meeting, became publicly available about 2 weeks ago, as part of the 214th Report. The listed deadline for Comment to the Maryland Supreme Court is on March 1, 2023, with an open meeting scheduled for March 23, 2023.
The concerns about reforming Maryland’s Unreported Opinion Rule are long-running and also previously discussed in previous posts here (on recent Maryland Supreme Court decision), here (on 2015 Rules proposal to allow them on Case Search, but restricting their use from other jurisdictions for first time), and here (Rules Committee dropping 2015 restrictions after criticism). The Federal Courts got rid of any Local Rules with a prohibition against citations for persuasive value back on January 1, 2007. This present iteration, is the first time the Rules Committee has proposed doing away with the unreported opinion citation Rule.
However, with 15 years of Federal appellate Courts managing the Rule change, the Rules Committee, has chosen to not follow the Federal model of a simple removal of the prohibition as all Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal now have, with citations available online. Instead, like the 2015 version, the Maryland Rules Committee seems to exchange more transparency for “granting” unreported opinion citations, by creating a much more complex Rule in its place.
Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 