SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2019
Thursday, March 5, 2020:
AG No. 3 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mohamed Alpha Bah
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael W. Blow
Attorney for Respondent: Mohamed Alpha Bah
No. 56 State of Maryland v. Muriel Morrison
Issue – Criminal Law – Was the evidence sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that Respondent was guilty of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment in the death of her infant beyond a reasonable doubt?
Attorney for Petitioner: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer
Attorney for Respondent: Haley J. Licha
No. 53 Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Prime Realty Associates, LLC
Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Does Md. Rule 3-124(o), allowing for substituted service of process on the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (“SDAT”), provide due process? 2) Did the trial court err by invalidating, on due process grounds, an order ratifying the sale of a vacant property when Respondent claimed lack of notice but Petitioner effectuated substituted service on SDAT and Respondent’s lack of notice resulted from its failure to provide SDAT a current, lawful address for its resident agent?
Attorney for Petitioner: Rachel Simmonsen
Attorney for Respondent: Robert L. Flynn, III
Monday, March 9, 2020:
No. 61 Motor Vehicle Administration v. Karl Geppert
Issues – Transportation – 1) Did CSA lack jurisdiction to consider Respondents challenge to Petitioner’s refusal to issue him a learner’s permit where Md. Code (2014) §10-223(a) of the State Government Article excluded from that court’s jurisdiction cases “aris[ing] under Title 16 of the Transportation Article” - the Article governing issuance of learner’s permits? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that a circuit court possess the authority to order an executive agency to perform an act that is directly contrary to Maryland law?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Leight D. Collins and Neil I. Jacobs
Attorney for Respondent: Stuart A. Schadt
No. 55 John Vigna v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err by contradicting the majority of other jurisdictions in holding that appropriate interaction with children is not a pertinent character trait under Md. Rule 5-404(a)(2)(A)? 2) Did CSA err when it failed to recognize that denying Petitioner the ability to introduce relevant character evidence, while at the same time allowing Respondent to introduce non-criminal “bad acts” character evidence, denied him the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Attorney for Petitioner: Justin Eisele
Attorney for Respondent: Sarah Page Pritzlaff
No. 54 State of Maryland v. Hayes Sample
Issues – Criminal Law – Did CSA err by holding that the mere abstract possibility of unauthorized access to Respondent’s social media account barred any reasonable juror from finding that he was responsible for the account entry in question?
Attorney for Petitioner: Peter R. Naugle
Attorney for Respondent: Rachel Kamins
Tuesday, March 10, 2020:
No. 57 Shawn Albert Franklin v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is it ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel to include in a timely filed motion for modification of sentence a request for a hearing accompanied by a request that the matter be held sub curia but to never secure an actual hearing on that motion in court in the ensuing five years as required by Md. Rule 4-345(e) in order to have the sentence actually modified? 2) Is a finding that it does not constitute ineffective assistance inconsistent with CSA’s decision in Moultrie v. State, 240 Md.App. 408 (2019)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Claudia A. Cortese
Attorney for Respondent: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer
No. 52 Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. v. Harford County, Maryland
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Does a takings claim under the Maryland Constitution accrue at the time of a stayed administrative decision or at the time of a final judicial decision affirming that result? 2) May a regulatory taking become permanent and stabilized before a court of proper jurisdiction determines the validity of the regulation effecting the taking? 3) Should Petitioner’s takings claim be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to raise this constitutional issue in any administrative proceeding? 4) Did the decision of the Harford County Board of Appeals prohibiting a proposed use of Petitioner’s land to protect the public constitute a taking for which compensation is due? 5) Does the jury’s damages award as compensation for an unconstitutional taking contravene Maryland law when the damages are not the fair market value of Petitioner’s land but are, instead, the capitalized profits of a hypothetical business?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brett Ingerman
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew H. Baida
No. 60 Pablo Javier Aleman v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Md. Code (2018 Repl. Vol.) §3- 112 of the Criminal Procedure Article, which requires the commitment to the Department of Health of a defendant found not criminally responsible, does not apply to a defendant who is in Maryland under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), Md. Code (2017 Repl. Vol) §8-401 et seq. of the Correctional Services Article? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the IAD requires that Petitioner, who was found not criminally responsible by a Maryland jury, must be returned to the sending state to complete a sentence in that state? 3) Did CSA err in holding that § 8-408 of the IAD, which states that “[n]o provision of this Agreement. . . shall apply to any person who is adjudged to be mentally ill,” was not triggered by the jury’s verdict that Petitioner was not criminally responsible?
Attorney for Petitioner: Piedad Gomez
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin A. Harris
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 March 10, 2020, the Court will recess until April 2, 2020.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON