Argument Schedule -- April, 2019


September Term, 2018


Friday, April 5, 2019:

Bar Admissions

AG No. 3 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Garland Montgomery Jarrat Sanderson

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Warren Blow, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Larry Rogers

No. 63 State of Maryland v. John Schlick

Issue – Criminal Law – Does a court lose revisory power over a criminal sentence “after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed,” as Maryland Rule 4-345(e) states, or does the court indefinitely retain “fundamental jurisdiction” to revise a sentence, which it is an abuse of discretion not to consider exercising, as CSA held below?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jer Welter
Attorneys for Respondent: Nancy S. Forster

No. 67 Peter Gang v. Montgomery County, Maryland 

Issue - Worker’s Compensation – 1) Does the language in Md. Code, Labor & Employment § 9-736(b) allow a revision of an Order within five years where both parties agree on the record that the prior order was a mistake regarding the prescribed rate of pay for a “public safety employee” and where this Court in Electrical General Corp. v. Labonte, 454 Md. 113 (2017), expressly held that the Commission has continuing powers and jurisdiction to modify prior findings or Orders?

Attorney for Petitioner: Kenneth M. Berman
Attorney for Respondent: Wendy B. Karpel


Monday, April 8, 2019:

No. 62 Ronald F. Moser, et al. v. Kristi Heffington, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it vacated the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s motion to stay in a case where: A) Respondent initiated the civil action for defamation; B) during the pendency of the civil action, Respondent was criminally indicted for the conduct at issue in the civil suit, yet Respondent had fully participated in all aspects of discovery both prior to and after the indictment, which discovery included her own deposition; and C) on the eve of trial, and four months after the indictment, Respondent filed an 11th hour motion to stay the civil trial on the grounds that she intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify at the civil trial? 2) Did Respondent waive her Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil action by testifying at her deposition and providing other discovery responses without invoking the privilege, after she was on notice that the police were investigating her for the conduct at issue? 3) Given that Respondent had already answered questions at her deposition concerning the conduct at issue, did Respondent fail to preserve for review the denial of a stay of the civil action where she failed to proffer the questions as to which she intended to invoke her right to silence – which was necessary to determine if she could validly exercise the privilege or had waived it? 4) Did CSA unnecessarily decide a Constitutional question, i.e. whether the trial court had failed to fully consider Respondent’s Fifth Amendment right by not granting a stay of the civil action, after it learned that Respondent had been convicted of the very conduct that formed the basis of the alleged defamation, which rendered moot her defamation claim?

Attorney for Petitioner: Terrell Roberts
Attorney for Respondent: Timothy E. Fizer

No. 68  State of Maryland v. Mark Edmund Christian, II

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the post-conviction court and CSA err when each court declined to order a hearing to resolve serious and wide-spread concerns about the integrity of the transcripts in this case and in other criminal trials presided over by this trial court judge? 2) Did the post-conviction court err when it failed to consider whether Respondent was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to instructions that told the jurors that the court’s instructions were “binding” and that they “must apply” the law as the court explained and also told the jurors that they were the “judges of the law,” and did CSA err when it concluded that the instructions resulted in “structural error” and that, consequently, Respondent had satisfied his burden to show that but for counsel’s failure to object to the instructions, there was a substantial possibility that the outcome of his trial would have been different?

Attorney for Petitioner: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer
Attorney for Respondent: Rosa T. Gross

No. 56 Comptroller of the Treasury v. Richard Reeves Taylor

Issues - Taxation – 1) Is the value of a surviving spouse’s interest in a QTIP trust created in another state properly included in the surviving spouse’s Maryland estate, and therefore subject to the Maryland estate tax? 2) Did the Tax Court improperly waive a late-filing penalty when waiver must be supported by “affirmative evidence” and the only basis cited for the waiver was the personal representative’s erroneous interpretation of the tax laws? 3) Is Petitioner’s taxation of the QTIP trust in the estate unconstitutional? 4) Is the fact that an issue was raised before the Tax Court, but not expressly decided by that agency, sufficient to permit review of that issue on appeal from the agency ruling?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael J. Salem
Attorney for Respondent: K. Donald Proctor


Tuesday, April 9, 2019:

Misc. No. 27 In re the Application of Alonya Renee Knight for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

No. 65 State of Maryland v. Andrew Brown

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does an announced sentence that is anomalous in context qualify as an “evident mistake” that is subject to correction under Maryland Rule 4-345(c)? 2) Can statements regarding the defendant’s aggregate sentence, serve under Maryland Rule 4-345(c), to “correct” a mistake in the announcement of a sentence on an individual count?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jer Welter
Attorney for Respondent: Jeffrey M. Ross

No. 69  Tomekia Conaway v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – In light of the language of the Justice Reinvestment Act (Md. Code, Crim. Proc. Art. §§ 6-223(e)(4) & 6-224(c)(2)(iv)), may a defendant obtain appellate review of a finding or decision imposing incarceration for a technical violation of probation by filing a notice of appeal, or is an application for leave to appeal required?

Attorney for Appellant: Brian M. Saccenti
Attorneys for Appellee: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer



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 April 9, 2019, the Court will recess until May 2, 2019.