Bar Admissions

AG No. 4  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Nikolaos Panagiotis Kourtesis

Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee
Attorney for Respondent: Robert N. Levin

No. 37  Tyrone Bryant v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Is a claim that the State failed to present sufficient evidence for the imposition of a subsequent offender sentence reviewable on appeal as a challenge to an illegal sentence or, in the alternative, the judgment of the trial court under Rule 8-131(c)? 2) Did the trial court err in imposing an enhanced sentence of 25 years without parole where the State failed to prove that the predicate convictions belonged to Petitioner?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Susannah E. Prucka

No. 33  Ronald Alexander Hobby v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft over $100,000 or at any level? 2) Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to sustain a conviction for burglary?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Braudes
Attorney for Respondent: Gary O'Connor

No. 36  Gore Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury
             Future Value, Inc., v. Comptroller of the Treasury

Issues - Taxation - 1) Did CSA err in applying a unitary business standard to establish a nexus between taxpayers and the State in a situation where patent royalties and interest paid by a parent corporation to its wholly-owned subsidiaries are claimed as business expenses in Maryland? 2) Did CSA misinterpret this Court's opinions about “economic substance” and understand it as a synonym for the unitary business principle? 3) Did CSA lower the showing required to disregard the corporate form by holding that a subsidiary is, in effect, a division of the parent, doing business everywhere the parent does business? 5) Did CSA err in holding that a MD regulation regarding the apportionment of tax liability for multi-state corporations was inapplicable to the situation at hand? 6) Did CSA err in defining the “use” of a patent to include the manufacture or sale of a product by a patent licensee?

Attorney for Petitioner: Robert F. Reklaitis
Attorney for Respondent: Michael J. Salem

AG No. 6 (2012 Term)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Ron Worthy

Attorney for Petitioner: James P. Botluk
Attorney for Respondent: William C. Brennan

No. 34  Delford Mitchell Barnes v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) When search and seizure warrants for DNA and fingerprints have been fully executed, is the individual's continued detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment in the absence of probable cause to arrest or is the continued detention justified by reasonable suspicion that the person committed the crime under investigation? 2) Was the detention of Petitioner justified under the applicable standard? 3) When an individual has been transported to a police station in order to execute a search of the person, is it reasonable for police to prolong the detention by delaying execution of that search warrant pending a search of the individual's residence? 4) Was Petitioner's detention prior to the execution of the DNA and fingerprint warrants reasonable? 5) Is the Fourth Amendment unlawful detention argument preserved for appellate review when Petitioner's brief before CSA argued only that the continued detention rendered his subsequent consent to search involuntary?

Attorney for Petitioner: Julie M. Reamy
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams

No. 38  Daniel Joseph Dodge v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did the trial court err in admitting the statements the victim made to a registered nurse in a hospital during a sexual assault forensic examination under Rule 5-803(b)(4) (“statements in contemplation of medical diagnosis or treatment”) based on the totality of the circumstances? 2) Did Petitioner preserve this argument for review where the grounds for the claim given at trial were different than those advanced on appeal? 3) Did the trial court err in excluding impeachment evidence that the victim had dreamed about, or could not remember, a sexual incident unrelated to this case?

Attorneys for Petitioner: Thomas M. Donnelly and Bennett J. Wills
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda Gruss