SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2016
Thursday, November 3, 2016:
AG No. 82 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Willie James Mahone
Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Irwin R. Kramer
AG No. 11 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Philip James Sweitzer
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Philip J. Sweitzer
No. 24 Ruben Arnez Collins v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law –Did the trial court’s method of conducting voir dire fail to reasonably ensure that the court received truthful and accurate responses to its questions, thus constituting an abuse of discretion and violating Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial jury?
Attorney for Petitioner: Juan P. Reyes
Attorney for Respondent: Robert K. Taylor, Jr.
No. 25 Frederick Classical Charter School, Inc. v. Frederick County Board of Education
Issues – Education – 1) Did the State Board err in finding that Petitioner contractually agreed to forego funding proportionate to the Local Board’s transportation spending because its students would not necessarily receive transportation from the school? 2) Did the State Board err by deferring to the Local Board’s interpretation of the contract and application of state law and by misstating its own precedent?
Attorney for Petitioner: Francis W. DuBois
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew W. Nussbaum
AG No. 68 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jerome Johnson
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Jerome P. Johnson
No. 27 In Re: Cody H.
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does MD’s restitution statute allowing for recovery of lost earnings “as a direct result of the crime” permit the court to order restitution for lost earnings to be earned in the future and for lost earnings for a randomly selected period of time? 2) Did CSA err in finding that competent evidence was introduced to support the claim for eight months of lost wages?
Attorney for Petitioner: Nancy S. Forster
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan R. Dietrich
No. 23 Kor-Ko Ltd. and John E. Rothamel v. Maryland Department of the Environment
Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) err by interpreting the definition of “premises” in COMAR § 26.11.15.06 to include the entire commercial park rather than one tenant in the multi-tenant commercial park? 2) Did MDE err by concluding that its “air toxics regulations do not apply” anywhere within the entire commercial park? 3) Did MDE err by not evaluating whether emissions of toxic air pollutants will unreasonably endanger the health of the neighboring tenant in the commercial park?
Attorney for Petitioner: John F. Dougherty
Attorney for Respondent: Roberta R. James
Misc. No. 5 In the Matter of the Honorable Pamela J. White
Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew Jay Graham
Attorney for Respondent: Richard R. Chambers
No. 60 Voters Organized for the Integrity of City Elections (V.O.I.C.E.) et al. v. Baltimore City Elections Board et al.
Attorneys for Appellant: J. Wyndal Gordon and Latoya Francis-Williams
Attorney for Appellee: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
No. 28 State of Maryland et al. v. Jamie Falcon et al.
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did the trial court err in enjoining portions of Chapter 35 of the 2016 Laws of Md. that alter the composition of the Nominating Commission where the law made permanent changes to the composition of the Commission to make it locally appointed? 2) Did the trial court err in treating members of the Nominating Commission as “officers” within the meaning of Article II, § 15 where they do not exercise any portion of the sovereign power of the State?
Attorney for Appellant: Julia Doyle Bernhardt
Attorney for Appellee: T. Sky Woodward
No. 26 Accokeek, Mattawoman, Piscataway Creeks Communities Council, Inc. v. The Public Service Commission of Maryland, et al.
Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) act outside of its statutory authority by imposing taxes, or mandatory payments, which it was not empowered to enact? 2) Did PSC violate Petitioner’s right to due process by failing to make sufficient findings of fact on the record regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station? 3) Were PSC’s findings regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station under Md. Code Public Utilities § 7-207(e)(2)(ii) supported by substantial evidence in the record?
Attorney for Petitioner: Sean Canavan
Attorneys for Respondent: Catherine Stetson and Miles H. Mitchell
No. 22 Dameron Smallwood v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Where a psychiatrist initially determined that Petitioner was criminally responsible for acts leading to criminal charges and that opinion led Petitioner to withdraw a plea of not criminally responsible (“NCR”) and proceed to trial on an agreed statement of facts and where, approximately 25 years later, the same psychiatrist concluded that Petitioner was in fact NCR at the time he committed the acts leading to the criminal charges, is the psychiatrist’s revised opinion about criminal responsibility newly discovered evidence that creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different such that Petitioner is entitled to relief under Criminal Procedure Article § 8-301? 2) Does § 8-301, which governs petitions for writs of actual innocence, contemplate relief for an individual who was convicted of a crime but who later presents newly discovered evidence that he was not criminally responsible at the time of the crime? 3) May a person who was convicted after a trial on an agreed statement of facts obtain relief under § 8-301? 4) Does an expert’s opinion that Petitioner was NCR, offered many years after the same expert opined that the petitioner was criminally responsible constitute “newly discovered evidence” under § 8-301? 5) Does the revised expert opinion that Petitioner was not criminally responsible at the time of the crime create a substantial or significant possibility that the result in this case may have been different?
Attorney for Petitioner: Rachel A. Simmonsen
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda Gruss
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After November 7, 2016, the Court will recess until December 1, 2016.
BESSIE M. DECKER