September 2024 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in one criminal and one civil appeal.
Read More…Five for Five: Five Justices Conclude the five-year Limit to Modify a Sentence is Jurisdictional in a 3-1-2-1 Decision
By: Isabelle Raquin
On August 29, 2024, a three-justice plurality and a two-justice concurrence of the Supreme Court of Maryland (SCM) agreed in State v. Thomas, No. 15 (Sept. Term 2023), that the five-year deadline under Maryland Rule 4-345(e)(1) for a circuit court to hear a motion to modify a sentence was a self-imposed jurisdictional deadline per the court’s rule-making authority. Previously, the SCM had held, in the context of the 30-day time to file a notice of appeal, that a deadline established by the SCM’s rule-making authority is a mandatory claims processing rule; which, of course, the parties may waive or forfeit without divesting the court of the power to act. In reliance on the logical application of the mandatory claims processing rule to the court-imposed five-year time for a circuit court to hold a hearing under Rule 4-345(e)(1), Mr. Thomas appealed the circuit court’s failure to timely schedule a hearing as requested, and its subsequent denial of the motion to modify once the deadline passed.
Read More…Hollins v. State and the Jury’s Role
Tomorrow the Supreme Court of Maryland hears argument in Hollins v. State. Question 1 asks: “Did the ACM erroneously apply a sufficiency of the evidence standard instead of the ‘some evidence’ standard when it upheld the denial of Petitioner’s request for a non-pattern jury instruction regarding the alleged victim’s propensity for violence?”
Denying a criminal jury instruction, on an issue that the defendant seeks to submit to the jury, has the same practical effect that a grant of partial summary judgment has in a civil case. It keeps an issue from the jury, based on a finding that there is not enough evidence for a reasonable jury to rule for the party who seeks to submit the issue to the jury.
Read More…Supreme Court of Maryland Requires New Hearing in Syed Case
The Supreme Court of Maryland today issued a four-to-three opinion affirming in part the decision of the Appellate Court. Justice Biran (joined by Justices Watts, Gould, and Eaves) wrote for the four-justice majority. Justice Hotten (joined by Justices Booth and Battaglia) and Justice Booth (joined by Justices Hotten and Battaglia) authored dissents.
Read More…August 2024 Maryland Certiorari Grants
Today the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in three appeals, including a case that Chris Mincher covered in his post, Coyle v. State: Ineffective Certiorari Counsel is Inconsequential. Today’s grants follow an earlier grant on August 12. The four grants, with questions presented, appear after the jump.
Read More…ACM Holding: Omitting “Against You” Won’t Be Held Against You
By: Chris Mincher
When it comes to the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), words matter. Although the law is clear that there is no specific mandatory Miranda language, straying from the traditional mantra raises questions. For example, is the notice that “everything that you say can be used on the court day” the same as “anything you say can be used against you in a court of law”? While the former ultimately passed muster in Alvarez-Garcia v. State, the Appellate Court panel split on the significance of omitting the phrase “against you.”
Read More…Coyle v. State: Ineffective Certiorari Counsel is Inconsequential
By: Chris Mincher
The murder of William Porter has been a bit of a wellspring for appellate criminal-law questions (many of which have been covered here already) and they’re still popping up 14 years later. Porter v. State produced judicial ink on self-defense, battered-spouse syndrome, the standard for jury instructions, and other wide-ranging topics. Now, earlier this year, Coyle v. State split the Appellate Court as to whether a defendant can, on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, file an untimely petition for writ of certiorari after his attorney — who was appointed by the Office of the Public Defender — botched the initial deadline. (Practice note: If you leave Bethesda at 3 p.m. in standstill beltway rush-hour traffic you may face difficulty getting to the Clerk’s Office in Annapolis by 4:30 close. Just a heads-up.)
Read More…July 2024 Certiorari Grant
On Monday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in one criminal case, which was filed by a pro se petitioner.
Read More…Judge Killough is Governor Moore’s First Appointee to Supreme Court of Maryland
Governor Wes Moore is appointing Prince George’s County Circuit Court Judge Peter K. Killough to the Supreme Court of Maryland to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Michele Hotten. Judge Killough is the first appointee since the Court’s 2022 name change, and therefore will be the first to hold the title “Justice” from day one of his service on the Court.
Read More…Four Nominated for Prince George’s County SCM Seat
The Appellate Courts Judicial Nominating Commission has nominated four judges for the vacancy on the Supreme Court of Maryland created by the retirement of Justice Michele Hotten:
Honorable Krystal Quinn Alves
Honorable Tiffany Hanna Anderson
Honorable Peter Kevin Killough
Honorable William Antoine Snoddy
Maryland Appellate Blog 