Maryland Courts

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2014

 

Denied September 3, 2014

Sampson v. Basso - Pet. Docket No. 244 (Harrell, J., dissents.)




 

Granted September 19, 2014

Tommy Garcia Bonilla v. State of Maryland - Case No. 63

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err by affirming the trial court’s judgment that a sentence below a binding plea agreement constitutes an illegal sentence?

Ottis E. Breeding, Jr. v. Christian Nicholas Koste - Case No. 66

Issues – Real Property – 1) Does the “woodlands exception” apply to cases involving adverse possession as well as those involving prescription? 2) If the “woodlands exception” applies to adverse possession cases, does it apply to the facts of this case? 3) Assuming, arguendo, the “woodlands exception” does apply and the use of the property was initially permissive, did there come a time when the character of the use changed and became adverse?

Derrick Arthur Counts v. State of Maryland - Case No. 65

Issue – Criminal Law – Is the value of the goods stolen an element of theft, such that amending a charging document on the morning of trial from theft under $1,000 (a misdemeanor) to theft of goods valued between $1,000 and $10,000 (a felony) constitutes a change to the character of the offense requiring the consent of both parties?

Willie Ford v. Antwerpen Motorcars - Case No. 68

Issue – Commercial Law – Under Md. law, may a car dealer force its customers into binding arbitration of a claim arising from a vehicle sales transaction, when the vehicle sales contract does not contain an arbitration agreement and Md. regulations governing vehicle sales transactions require the vehicle sales contract to “contain[] all agreements of the parties”?

Jermaine Hailes v. State of Maryland - Case No. 62

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does C.J.P. § 12-302, which authorizes an appeal by the State from “a decision of a trial court that excludes evidence offered by the State … alleged to have been seized in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Maryland Constitution, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights,” permit an appeal from the pretrial exclusion of evidence where the evidence was not seized and the constitutional violation will occur only if the State introduces the evidence at trial? 2) Did the victim’s statement of identification constitute a dying declaration where the victim made the statement four days after he was injured, two days after he was told that it would be unlikely if he lived for more than 24 hours, and two years before he died? 3) Does the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation bar the admission of the evidence in this case?

Tavares D. Harris v. State of Maryland - Case No. 59

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Are one-to-one communications sent through a social networking website governed by the authentication standard, announced in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), or are they excepted from the standard, as announced in footnote 13 of Griffin because they are like emails, texts and instant messages? 2) Should there remain a difference in assessing the authentication of evidence derived from social networking websites on the one hand and emails/texts/ instant messages on the other, given the identical identity-separation concerns attendant to all those forms of communication? 3) If the standard in Griffin applies, did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting Twitter messages purportedly written by petitioner when no extrinsic evidence connected petitioner to the account or the authorship of the messages?

Carlos Alberto Monge-Martinez v. State of Maryland - Case No. 60
Petition filed by the Office of the Public Defender granted. Petition filed by Carlos Alberto Monge-Martinez pro se and the conditional cross-petition both denied.

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Are one-to-one communications sent through a social networking website governed by the authentication standard, announced in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), or are they excepted from the standard, as announced in footnote 13 of Griffin because they are like emails, texts and instant messages? 2) Should there remain a difference in assessing the authentication of evidence derived from social networking websites on the one hand and emails/texts/ instant messages on the other, given the identical identity-separation concerns attendant to all those forms of communication? 3) If the standard in Griffin applies, did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting Twitter messages purportedly written by petitioner when no extrinsic evidence connected petitioner to the account or the authorship of the messages? 4) Did CSA err in deeming any error in this regard by the trial court harmless?

Patrick T. Morgan v. Carpenter's Trailer Court - Case No. 61

Issue – Real Property – Did the trial court err in failing to apply the lodestar method when calculating attorney’s fees pursuant to the fee-shifting provision in R.P. § 8A-1301?

Prince George's County v. Zimmer Development - Case No. 64

Issues- Zoning and Planning – 1) Did CSA err in its statutory construction of the “Regional District Act” (“RDA”) by holding that the District Council is vested with appellate rather than original jurisdiction over Planning Board preliminary determinations with respect to regional and legislative zoning matters? 2) Did CSA err by applying County Council of Prince George’s County v. Curtis Regency, 121 Md. App. 123, even though it involved a preliminary planning matter rather than a legislative, regional zoning matter which conflicts with this Court’s holding in County Council of Prince George’s County v. Dutcher, 365 Md. 399? 3) Whether the County Council’s 1996 enactment of the County Code (“PGCC”) § 27-132(f), providing that the District Council “shall exercise original jurisdiction” in its “review [of] a decision made by … the Planning Board,” is consistent with the provisions of the RDA? 4) Whether CSA’s holding improperly transfers the legislative, regional zoning authority expressly provided to the District Council by the RDA to the Planning Board, a subordinate agency? 5) Whether CSA’s holding violates the separation of powers doctrine because the judiciary has divested the legislative body of its legislative authority over regional zoning, including the applications related to zoning map amendments sought here, specifically designated by State law? 6) Whether CSA nullified the District Council’s statutory right to “remand” a case to the Planning Board for further information, and the District Council’s obligation to issue a “final” decision prior to judicial review, by holding that the District Council is limited after remand to only those issues that were remanded? 7) Assuming, arguendo, that CSA correctly held that the District Council’s standard of review of the Planning Board’s actions is the “arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or illegal” standard, then whether CSA erred by reinstating the Planning Board’s recommendations as to Zimmer’s applications, instead of remanding for the District Council to apply the correct standard of review?

State of Maryland v. Harold Albert Norton, Jr. - Case No. 67

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in determining that Norton’s right to confrontation under the federal constitution was violated where a DNA expert testified regarding the work of another DNA analyst, and that expert was a supervisor in the same lab, reviewed the work of the other analyst, and came to his own conclusion that was consistent with the conclusion of the other analyst, but the analyst herself did not testify?

WSSC v. Lafarge North America - Case No. 69

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a trial court may exceed the permissible scope of judicial review when considering a “deemed” rejection of a refund claim under PUA § 25-106? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s order mandating that WSSC’s investigative files be produced as part of the agency record pursuant to Md. Rule 7-206?

 

Denied September 22, 2014

Asare, Paul O. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 284
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl - Pet. Docket No. 267
Baker v. O'Malley - Pet. Docket No. 286
Bell v. Dyck O'Neal, Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 417
Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Mass v. Medimmune - Pet. Docket No. 337
Bongam v. Besem - Pet. Docket No. 299
Brown, Leo v. State - Pet. Docket No. 253
Brown, Montire v. State - Pet. Docket No. 266
Brown v. Rosenberg - Pet. Docket No. 314
Buckenmaier v. The Key School - Pet. Docket No. 306
Burgess, Keith v. State - Pet. Docket No. 301
Burr v. Md. State Retirement and Pension Sys. of Md. - Pet. Docket No. 224
Cehic v. Sachs - Pet. Docket No. 261
Cochran, Jeremy S. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 313
Cole, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 319
Conyers, Quinntin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 312
Crisafi v. Settle Woods Home Owners Assoc. - Pet. Docket No. 397
Davis, Ralph v. State - Pet. Docket No. 296
Doe v. Sovereign Grace Ministries - Pet. Docket No. 321
Dorsey, Michael, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 254
Drexler and Drexler v. Bornman and Wright - Pet. Docket No. 260
Ellis v. NVR, Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 318
Employees' Retirement Sys. of Baltimore Co. v. Dawson - Pet. Docket No. 333
Foster v. Dept. of Public Safety & Correctional Services - Pet. Docket No. 334
Fulton, Bill v. State - Pet. Docket No. 256
Funes v. Wurz - Pet. Docket No. 257
Goddard, Gabriel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 325
Godwin, Dionederick R. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 303
Gordon Contractors v. Corinthian Contractors - Pet. Docket No. 234
Hall, Brian Owen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 277
Hall, John Edward, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 297
Hargrave, Roger v. Prince George's Co. Correctional Center - Pet. Docket No. 164
Hargrave, Roger v. Prince George's Co. Police Dept. - Pet. Docket No. 165
Hill, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 309
Holbrook, Rena Orlando, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 311
Holloway, Lionel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 324
Hutt, Jamar D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 278
Jackson, Antwoin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 178
Jackson, Sherwod v. State - Pet. Docket No. 290
Johnson, Jerome v. State - Pet. Docket No. 328
Johnson v. Xerox Education Solutions - Pet. Docket No. 285
Jones, George v. State - Pet. Docket No. 298
Judd v. Piscopo - Pet. Docket No. 259
Junkin v. Renda - Pet. Docket No. 331
Matthews, Dontae v. S tate - Pet. Docket No. 291
Mayes v. Johns Hopkins Healthcare - Pet. Docket No. 323
Mayes, Norman Lindsey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 326
McBrien v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. - Pet. Docket No. 335
O'Toole, Patrick Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 280
Ogundele, Ogunmuyiwa v. State - Pet. Docket No. 271
Phipps v. Phipps - Pet. Docket No. 153
Pittman, Robert Junius v. State - Pet. Docket No. 187
Rascoe, Henry v. State - Pet. Docket No. 315
Reinburg, Mary v. State - Pet. Docket No. 246
Robbins, Antonio v. State - Pet. Docket No. 196
Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association v. M-NCPPC - Pet. Docket No. 213
Shipkovitz v. City of Rockville Planning Commission - Pet. Docket No. 288
Simms v. Best Temps Career Assoc. - Pet. Docket No. 191
Singletary v. Dore - Pet. Docket No. 310
Smith, Melvin W. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 279
Smith v. Wright - Pet. Docket No. 258
State v. Hadel, Justin Michael - Pet. Docket No. 273
State v. Johnson, Jerome L. - Pet. Docket No. 262
State v. Emajae M. - Pet. Docket No. 304
Stroud, Rodney v. State - Pet. Docket No. 289
Taylor, Michael Quinton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 336
Tinsky v. Lowy - Pet. Docket No. 269
Tomey v. Injured Workers Insurance Fund - Pet. Docket No. 320
Tomey v. Lambdin - Pet. Docket No. 281
Waters, Brian Keith v. State - Pet. Docket No. 283
Williams v. Board of Education of Baltimore Co. - Pet. Docket No. 282
Williams, Ryan Wayne v. State - Pet. Docket No. 268