SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2020
Thursday, May 6, 2021:
AG No. 10 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Christopher Edward Vasiliades
Attorneys for Petitioner: Nora A. Nichols and Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Joseph Murtha
No. 48 RDC Melanie Drive, LLC v. Mark R. Eppard, et al.
Issues – Real Property – 1) As a matter of first impression, is the Amended Declaration enforceable against Petitioner/Cross-Respondent where the Amended Declaration adds new restrictions and the language of the amendment clause of the Original Declaration does not expressly permit changes which add new restrictions? 2) Did the trial court and CSA err in ruling that the Amended Declaration does not add additional restrictions to Lot 6, where it plainly adds new restrictions prohibiting golf course uses and driving ranges? 3) Is the enforcement of the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance,” or any amendment thereto, subject to review on an objective standard? 4) Have Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ claims that the use of Lot 6 as a driving range will be “noxious or offensive” or cause “annoyance or nuisance” been fully litigated before the Board of Appeals and are those claims precluded by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata? If not, is Petitioner/Cross-Respondent entitled to a trial on those issues and claims? 5) Are the restrictions prohibiting any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” or any use that “may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood or other owners” too vague to be enforced? 6) Does the Original Declaration prohibit golf course uses, driving ranges, or other commercial activity under a uniform plan of development? 7) Is Petitioner/Cross-Respondent entitled to summary judgment on the Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ claims arising from Article III, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph (m) of the Original Declaration and from the Zajic Declaration? 8) In this declaratory judgment action, were the trial court and CSA obliged to review each provision of the applicable covenants addressed by the parties in the pleadings and to declare the rights and obligations of the parties based upon the language of the instruments, read together in accordance with their express terms and the intent thereof as stated in the instruments? 9) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by failing to render an analysis whether the Original Declarations, by their terms, intended only a residential and agricultural use subdivision? 10) Did the trial court and CSA err by declaring that the issues arising under the Zajic Declaration were moot under the circumstances of this case? 11) Did the trial court and CSA err in their interpretation that the Original Declaration permits a boundary line adjustment with a non-subdivision lot for the purpose of permitting resort and golf course uses on land intended for only residential and agricultural use? 12) Did the trial court and CSA err as a matter of law by failing to address Respondent/Cross-Petitioners’ request for injunctive relief in light of their conclusion that the Amended Declaration is a valid prohibition of driving range development?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Michael G. Rust and Bruce C. Armistead
Attorney for Respondent: David R. Thompson
Friday, May 7, 2021:
No. 50 Darwin Naum Monroy Madrid v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the defense of duress was “unavailable … as a matter of law” to Petitioner because of his gang involvement? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold of “some evidence” required to generate the defense of duress? 3) Did CSA err in upholding the denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress his statement to police because: (a) the interrogating officer’s statements leading to Petitioner’s confession constituted an impermissible inducement; (b) Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that Petitioner, a minor with no prior experience with the criminal justice system, knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights following a 40-second advisement of his rights which did not include a written waiver; (3) under the totality of the circumstances, Petitioner’s confession was involuntary?
Attorney for Petitioner: Piedad Gomez
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin A. Harris
No. 53 Jonathan Torin Kidder v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err by upholding the trial court’s method of jury selection, which was disapproved but allowed in the Court’s reported decision in Williams v. State, 246 Md.App. 308 (2020), whereby the trial court excluded prospective jurors from the venire based on shared characteristics, without a finding of bias?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Anne K. Olesen and Anne J. Martin
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew J. DiMiceli
Monday, May 10, 2021:
AG No. 71 (2019 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gary Morgan Brooks
Attorney for Petitioner: Jessica M. Boltz
Attorney for Respondent: Irwin R. Kramer
No. 55 Darrell Leonard Mainor v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court abuse its discretion and violate Petitioner’s right to present information in mitigation of punishment where the court insisted that petitioner be sentenced before it discharged the jury and refused to postpone sentencing for either a presentence investigation or the appearance and testimony of Petitioner’s mother on his behalf?
Attorney for Petitioner: Amy E. Brennan
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew H. Costinett
No. 25 Larry Lee v. WinnCompanies LLC
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the Circuit Court commit an error of law in affirming the District Court’s denial of a motion for a new hearing after finding, on the basis of the record before the trial court, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion? 2) Did the Circuit Court err in finding an appeal untimely when, pursuant to Rule 7-104(c), the Petitioner noted an appeal to a summary ejectment action within 30 days after the disposition of a timely filed post-judgment motion?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Douglas Edward Nivens, II and Gregory Leo Countess
Attorneys for Respondent: Letecia Rollins and Tracy Buck
Tuesday, May 11, 2021:
Misc. No. 14 In the Matter of the Application of Leonid Nemirovsky for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Attorney for Applicant: Stephan Brennan
No. 51 Howard Jimmy Davis v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Procedure – As a matter of first impression, does a trial court determining whether to transfer jurisdiction of a criminal case to the juvenile court discharge its responsibility under Md. Code § 4-202(d)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Article to consider the “amenability of the child to treatment in an institution, facility, or program available to delinquent children” by considering the child’s eligibility for services in the juvenile system, or does the court also need to consider the child’s rehabilitative potential?
Attorney for Petitioner: Kiran Iyer
Attorney for Respondent: Peter R. Naugle
After May 11, 2021, the Court will recess until June 3, 2021.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON
Pursuant to the February 16, 2021 Amended Administrative Order Expanding Statewide Judiciary Operations in light of the COVID-19 Emergency and the June 18, 2018 Administrative order on the Implementation of Remote Electronic Participation in Judicial Proceedings, and the March 25, 2021 Fourth Administrative Order on Remote Oral Arguments, the Court will hear oral arguments in these cases by videoconferencing.