Petitions for Writ of Certiorari - April 2019

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2018

 

 

Granted April 10, 2019

Andrews & Lawrence Professional Services, LLC and Galyn Manor Homeowners Association, Inc. v. David O. Mills, et ux. - Case No. 5, September Term, 2019

Issue – Commercial Law – The Maryland Consumer Protection Act “does not apply to” the “professional services” of a lawyer. In view of this exemption, can an attorney’s client be deemed to have violated the Act, or otherwise be subject to a claim for damages, based solely on the conduct of its attorney that, absent the attorney’s exemption, would, arguendo, constitute a violation of the Act?

Robin Bartlett Frazier v. James McCarron, et al. - Case No. 4, September Term, 2019

Issues – General Provisions – 1) For the imposition of a public fine under the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”), must the public body not only “willfully” meet “with knowledge” that its meeting is in violation of the Act, but also have a nefarious motive? 2) When the OMA is violated, but a trial court erroneously finds no violation, is that error “harmless” with respect to enforcing the Act? 3) Should the OMA be strictly construed to limit a public body’s actions to the closed meeting exceptions it publicly discloses prior to the meeting?

Goshen Run Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Cumanda Cisneros - Case No. 3, September Term, 2019

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does a confessed judgment clause in a promissory note/forbearance agreement involving homeowners association assessments that expressly preserves the right of the defendant to assert legal defenses, violate the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”)? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that homeowners association assessments are consumer debts within the meaning of the CPA, if the consideration given by a payee to a promisor in a promissory note is the forbearance of debt collection activity on the antecedent debt, does such a promissory note relate to a “consumer transaction” under the CPA? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the answer to the first question is affirmative, was it appropriate for the district court to invoke a severability provision in the note, sever the confession clause, and proceed to a trial on the merits, because the CPA does not provide the remedy of voiding contracts? 4) Did the circuit court misapply Maryland law when it determined that after a confessed judgment is vacated, it is impermissible to permit a trial on the merits on an amended complaint, as that would constitute “another bite at the apple,” and that such complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 3-611(b)?

Daniel Joseph Greene v. State of Maryland - Case No. 7, September Term, 2019

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a case of first impression, did CSA err in holding that Maryland adopts the “confirmatory identification” line of out-of-state cases that exempt from pre-trial constitutional review of “non-selective” identifications? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s suppression of the identification of Petitioner, where police procedures used to obtain the identification violate due process? 3) Did CSA err in alternatively holding that the trial court failed to examine the appropriate factors in ruling the identification was inadmissible?

Joshua Sabisch v. Stephen T. Moyer et al. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services - Case No. 6, September Term, 2019

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, while on probation before judgment and required as conditions of his probation to obey all laws, to have no contact with the victim, to have no unsupervised contact with children under age eighteen, to provide his current address to probation authorities, to register as a sex offender, and to report by telephone to his probation supervisor in Maryland every thirty days while residing in Michigan and to follow his supervisor’s lawful instructions, was not entitled to petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc, § 3-702, because he was not subject to “physical” restraint? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner, while on probation before judgment, was not entitled to petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 3-702, because he was not present in Maryland at the time of the filing of his petition and because the conditions of Petitioner’s probation did not create a sufficient “presence” in Maryland while Petitioner was residing in Michigan? 3) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus on grounds that Petitioner accepted probation before judgment and waived his right to appeal pursuant to § 6-220?

Danny Trotman v. State of Maryland - Case No. 8, September Term, 2019

Issue – Criminal Law – As an issue of first impression, may a judge who retired in 2014, over defense objection, excuse for cause multiple veniremen who claim to be unable to climb 25 stairs, while refusing to consider possible accommodations for dealing with the veniremen’s disabilities or health problems, in a circuit court that has 35 judges and comprises two large courthouses?

 

 

Denied April 19, 2019

Allen v. Hill - Pet. Docket No. 406
Barnett, Antonio v. State - Pet. Docket No. 494 and conditional cross-petition
Bigham, Dale v. State - Pet. Docket No. 14 *
Cardillo, Henry J. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 377
Carmean, Glenn Allen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 7 *
Clark, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No. 458
Clark, Corey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 33 *
Clark, Hammel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 10 *
Clements, David Thomas v. State - Pet. Docket No. 513
Collins, Joel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 466
Crawson, Michael Timothy v. State - Pet. Docket No. 20 *
Dame, Francois v. State - Pet. Docket No. 32 *
Dickerson, Daquan Cartier v. State - Pet. Docket No. 533
Estate of Puppolo v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore - Pet. Docket No. 529
GAB Enterprises v. Rocky Gorge Development - Pet. Docket No. 534
Gray, Isaac v. State - Pet. Docket No. 525
Hailes, Jermaine v. State - Pet. Docket No. 519
Harris, Edward Allen, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 415
Hicks, Allen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 12 *
Hirshauer v. AQ Holdings - Pet. Docket No. 501
Horan v. Marks - Pet. Docket No. 510
Isel v. Munson - Pet. Docket No. 500
Jobes, Michael, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 496
Johnson v. Credit One Bank - Pet. Docket No. 514
Johnson, Arnold, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 505
Marks, Jason Nathaniel v. State - Pet. Docket No. 15 *
Mayor & City Council of Ocean City v. Nathans Associates - Pet. Docket No. 518
Miller v. Jacobs Technology - Pet. Docket No. 524
Mobley, Da'van R. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 527
Ogunde v. Johnson - Pet. Docket No. 9 *
Ong, Lye Huat v. State - Pet. Docket No. 521
Palmore v. Washington Mutual Bank - Pet. Docket No. 497
Parker, Wayne K. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 526
Pellum v. Unique & Modern Homes - Pet. Docket No. 530
Porter v. Baltimore Washington Medical Center - Pet. Docket No. 517
Reed, Alfred Orlando v. State - Pet. Docket No. 516
Reynolds, Johnny v. State - Pet. Docket No. 25 *
Rubin v. United Therapeutics - Pet. Docket No. 535
Sahbi Hookah v. Baltimore County - Pet. Docket No. 493
Schleunes v. Schleunes - Pet. Docket No. 511
Seymour v. Tidewater Investment Group - Pet. Docket No. 508
Smallwood v. Brown - Pet. Docket No. 522
Stratton, Michael v. State - Pet. Docket No. 528
Terrell, Chastian Devon v. State - Pet. Docket No. 11 *
T.T.G., LLC v. RLD Rental Properties - Pet. Docket No. 502
Turner, Terrence Norman, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 523
Witherspoon, Edward v. State - Pet. Docket No. 520
Witherspoon v. Bishop - Pet. Docket No. 532




* September Term 2019

 

 

Granted April 22, 2019

Dana T. Johnson, Jr. v. State of Maryland - Case No. 9, September Term, 2019

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Section 5-612 of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits possession of certain quantities of controlled dangerous substances, provides that “[a] person who is convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and is subject to a fine not exceeding $100,000.” What is the maximum allowable period of incarceration for a violation of this law? 2) Did the circuit court impose an illegal sentence of fourteen years of incarceration for a violation of section 5-612 of the Criminal Law Article?

State of Maryland v. Bryan Santos - Case No. 10, September Term, 2019

Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Did the trial court properly admit testimony by Respondent’s wife about statements he made to her and a statement by Respondent admitting some of the things he did with the victims?