SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2018
Thursday, September 6, 2018:
Bar Admissions
AG. No. 23 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Steven Douglas Shemenski
Attorney for Petitioner: Erin A. Risch
Attorney for Respondent: Steven Douglas Shemenski
No. 34 April Ademiluyi v. Chizoba Egbuonu, et al.
Election appeal.
Attorney for Appellant: Allen Dyer
Attorneys for Appellee: Bruce L. Marcus and Andrea W. Trento
No. 8 Darryl Nichols v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Can the law of the case doctrine bar a claim of an illegal sentence for failure to properly raise the issue on appeal, despite Maryland Rule 4-345’s provision that a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time? 2) Is Petitioner’s total sentence of 80 years of imprisonment, which was imposed at resentencing, an illegal increase from his previous total sentence of life with all but 50 years suspended?
Attorney for Petitioner: Julie M. Reamy
Attorney for Respondent: Sarah Page Pritzlaff
Misc. No. 1 William Price, et al. v. Ralph M. Murdy, et al.
Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Question - Whether the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Md. Code Ann. Com. Law § 12-302's licensing requirement is an "other specialty" subject to Maryland's twelve year limitations period under [CJP] 5-102(a)(6)?
Attorney for Appellant: Cory L. Zadjel
Attorney for Appellee: Andrew K. O'Connell
No. 2 State of Maryland v. Steven Young
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in determining that Respondent preserved a claim that the trial court erred in excluding written prescriptions for controlled dangerous substances where the record does not contain a copy of the written prescriptions or any proffer or any information that could support a finding that they were authentic? 2) If preserved, did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in excluding the prescriptions because there was not sufficient evidence that they were authentic? 3) Did CSA err in determining that prescriptions offered to show that controlled dangerous substances were obtained “by prescription or order from an authorized provider acting in the course of professional practice” did not constitute hearsay on the basis that they were not offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted”?
Attorney for Petitioner: Gary E. O'Connor
Attorneys for Respondent: Catherine E. Fata and Abigail Edwards
Friday, September 7, 2018:
No. 9 Rodney Lee Agnew v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law –Was a recorded communication on a cell phone between Petitioner and an unidentified speaker intercepted in violation of the Md. Wiretap Statute and erroneously admitted at trial when there was no enumerated exception for its admissibility?
Attorney for Petitioner: Megan E. Coleman
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda Gruss
No. 3 Baltimore City Detention Center v. Michael Foy
Issue – Correctional Services – Where, due to an equipment malfunction, a correctional officer’s penalty-increase meeting with the appointing authority was not contemporaneously recorded, did CSA err in concluding that the recording failure was incurable, even though the Department otherwise complied with all of the statutory procedures for terminating a correctional officer for misconduct?
Attorney for Petitioner: Lisa O. Arnquist
Attorney for Respondent: David Gray Wright
No. 6 Wilfredo Rosales v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Were the complainant's prior convictions for committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity admissible for the purposes of impeachment under Md. Rules 5-609?
Attorney for Petitioner: Piedad Gomez
Attorney for Respondent: Jer Welter
Wednesday, September 12, 2018:
No. 10 Bradford Owusu v. Motor Vehicle Administration
Issues – Transportation – 1) Is it a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to Transp. §16-205.1 when, after reading the MVA’s DR-15 advice form, a police officer’s oral restatement of the penalties for failing and refusing a breath test omits the most severe mandatory penalty for refusal? 2) Is the DR-15 form’s failure to advise suspected drunk drivers of the length of time the ignition interlock would be required in the event of a refusal – one year – a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to Transp. §16-205.1?
Attorney for Petitioner: Leonard R. Stamm
Attorney for Respondent: Neil I. Jacobs
No. 4 Philip Paul Ingram, Jr. v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does § 7-104 of the Criminal Law Article provide independent authority for a court to order restitution in a theft case or, alternatively, is a court’s authority to order restitution constrained by the restitution provisions in Title 11 of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Where a defendant is convicted of theft, may a sentencing court order the defendant to make restitution when neither the victim nor the State has requested restitution?
Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan Dietrich
No. 10 Bradford Owusu v. Motor Vehicle Administration
Issues – Transportation – 1) Is it a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to Transp. §16-205.1 when, after reading the MVA’s DR-15 advice form, a police officer’s oral restatement of the penalties for failing and refusing a breath test omits the most severe mandatory penalty for refusal? 2) Is the DR-15 form’s failure to advise suspected drunk drivers of the length of time the ignition interlock would be required in the event of a refusal – one year – a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to Transp. §16-205.1?
Attorney for Petitioner: Leonard R. Stamm
Attorney for Respondent: Neil I. Jacobs
No. 12 Ronald Cornish v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Where a criminal defendant has satisfied all the pleading requirements entitling him to a hearing on his motion for a new trial pursuant to Md. Rule 4-331 (c) and (f) and the trial court summarily denies the motion without a hearing, does an appellate court err in affirming the trial court by ruling on the merits of the motion?
Attorney for Petitioner: Amy E. Brennan
Attorney for Respondent: Benjamin A. Harris
No. 14 State of Maryland v. Brandon Payton
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where Respondent made specific objections to reopening the State’s case for more fingerprint-expert testimony only on the grounds that the additional fingerprint testimony would be the last thing that the jury would hear and that it would be presented in isolation, were defense counsel’s claims that reopening would be “unfair” and “extremely prejudicial” or the trial court’s statement that the reopening could “very well … be grounds for appeal” sufficient to preserve a judicial-partiality claim? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in reopening the State’s case sua sponte? 3) Where the reopening of the State’s case was based on the trial court’s incorrect assumption that there had been no testimony linking Respondent to the handprint, was any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative of the testimony of three prior witnesses linking Respondent to the handprint?
Attorney for Petitioner: Gary E. O'Connor
Attorney for Respondent: Celia Anderson Davis
Thursday, September 13, 2018:
No. 5 Maryland Department of the Environment v. County Commissioners of Carroll County, Maryland
Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 2) Has MDE unlawfully subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and by subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 3) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill its Permit obligations in part by using water quality trading as a compliance method? 4) Has MDE violated state law by incorporating and amending Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 1-406 through the Permit?
Attorney for Appellant: Adam D. Snyder
Attorney for Appellee: Mary Rosewin Sweeney
No. 7 Frederick County, Maryland v. Maryland Department of the Environment
Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Has MDE exceeded its authority by imposing conditions in the Permit that exceed the “maximum extent practicable” standard mandated by the Clean Water Act? 2) Has MDE acted unlawfully by imposing requirements in the Permit that are impossible to achieve within the five-year permit term? 3) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 4) Has MDE improperly subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 5) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill a portion of its Permit obligations using water quality trading as a compliance method?
Attorney for Appellant: Christopher D. Pomeroy
Attorney for Appellee: Adam D. Snyder
No. 11 David Leander Ford v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in allowing the State to introduce evidence of the victim’s character for peacefulness, in a homicide case, when, in his opening statement, the defendant clearly stated that the victim was the first aggressor and suggested that evidence would be introduced to prove it? 2) What is the correct standard for determining whether a defendant’s conduct is too ambiguous or equivocal to be admissible as evidence of “consciousness of guilt”? 3) Did the trial court err in allowing, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, the State’s witness to testify about Petitioner’s reaction to being told that he had to leave her home?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Jessica V. Carter
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 September 13, 2018, the Court will recess until October 3, 2018.
BESSIE M. DECKER
CLERK