Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's sentence, holding that the State's belated notice to Defendant of his subsequent offender status was a procedural deficiency subject to harmless error review and that Defendant was not prejudiced beyond a reasonable doubt due to the belated notice.Defendant was convicted of driving while impaired by alcohol, reckless driving, negligent driving, and failure to control speed to avoid a collision. Prior to trial, the State served Defendant with a notice of his subsequent offender status as required by Maryland Rule 4-245, but the notice was sent five days later than required by Maryland Rule 4-245. At sentencing, the circuit court enhanced Defendant's sentence as a subsequent offender. Defendant did not object to the punishment enhancement. The court of appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the failure to give timely notice was a procedural error and did not give rise to an illegal sentence; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the belated notice; and (3) Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be considered within a post-conviction proceeding. View "Bailey v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the court of special appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that Defendant proved that his trial counsel's performance was deficient but failed to establish prejudice.Defendant was found guilty of eleven charges arising out of an armed robbery. After an unsuccessful appeal, Defendant petitioned for postconviction relief, arguing that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not moving to strike a juror for cause and by not using a peremptory challenge against the juror. The circuit court denied the petition, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's trial counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but the presumption of prejudice did not apply here; and (2) Defendant failed to prove prejudice under the circumstances of this case. View "Ramirez v. State" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeals held that the Justice Reinvestment Act of 2016 (JRA), codified as Md. Code Crim. Proc. 6-223(d), does not grant probationers found to have committed a technical violation of probation the right to appeal directly to the court of special appeals from a circuit court's order of violation of probation and resulting sentence that exceeds the presumptive limits of incarceration for a technical violation but, rather, probation violators in this position must seek appellate review by application for leave to appeal.Petitioners Tomekia Conaway and Luke Daniel Johnson violated the conditions of their probation. The circuit court revoked Petitioners' probation and sentenced them to terms of incarceration. At issue in both cases was whether Petitioners could proceed with an appeal by way of a notice of appeal or, rather, an application for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals held that Petitioners had no right of direct appeal and must file an application for leave to appeal. View "Conaway v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals reversing Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence and abused its discretion in weighing the proportionality of a statement made by Defendant indicating his intention to sell cocaine, and the error was not harmless.The trial court weighed the probative value and prejudicial effect of the contested portion of Defendant's previously redacted statement and ultimately admitted the unredacted statement, concluding that defense counsel's remarks triggered the opening the door doctrine. Defendant was ultimately convicted of involuntary manslaughter and second-degree assault. The court of special appeals reversed the trial court's ruling that the door had been opened and held that the trial court's error in allowing the statement into evidence was not harmless. The Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court erred when it determined that defense counsel opened the door to admitting Defendant's statement based upon a comment made in her opening statement; and (2) admitting Defendant's statement was legal error and an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Heath" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) finding that Petitioner was responsible for indicated child neglect under Md. Code Ann. Fam. Law (Fam. Law) 5-701(s), holding that intent or scienter is not an element of child neglect under Fam. Law 5-701(s).Defendant forgot to drop his seventeen-month-old son off at daycare before going to work. The child was found in the car more than six hours later and pronounced dead at the scene. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services rendered a finding of indicated child neglect against Defendant. An ALJ concluded that the Department had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the finding of indicated child neglect was supported by credible evidence and consistent with the law. The circuit court affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether "neglect" under Fam. Law 5-701(s) requires proof of an element of scienter. The Court of Special Appeals held that the statute does not require scienter. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plain language of the statute excludes intent as an element of child neglect. View "Junek v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for robbery on the ground that the guilty verdict on the robbery charge was legally inconsistent with Defendant's acquittal on a second-degree assault charge, holding that the guilty verdict on the robbery count should be affirmed.A jury found Defendant guilty of robbery and theft but acquitted him of second-degree assault. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the conviction on the robbery count, concluding that the trial court erred in accepting inconsistent verdicts because the second-degree assault charge of which Defendant was acquitted was a lesser-included offense of the robbery. A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed, but the members who agreed with this disposition did so for different reasons. Two judges would apply a two-step analysis to hold that that the verdicts were not legally inconsistent and that the evidence satisfied the elements of robbery. Two other judges would analyze whether the verdict demonstrated that the jury disregarded the trial court's instructions on the law to conclude that the guilty verdict on the robbery count should not be reversed on the ground of inconsistency. View "State v. Stewart" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter, holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of gross negligence involuntary manslaughter for selling heroin to the victim, who fatally overdosed.Specifically, the Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that Defendant's conduct was both the actual and legal cause of the victim's death. Therefore, the Court held that Defendant could be held to the most minimal level of criminal homicide culpability and that the trial court did not err in convicting Defendant of gross negligence involuntary manslaughter. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

In this case involving the correct interpretation of Maryland Rule 4-345(c), the Court of Appeals held that, for a "mistake in the announcement of a sentence" to be "evident" under the statute, the mistake must be clear or obvious and that, under Maryland Rule 4-345(c), the circuit court did not make an evident mistake in the announcement of Defendant's sentence for conspiracy to rob Demaris Glover with a dangerous weapon.A jury found Defendant guilty of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to rob both Glover and William Rich with a dangerous weapon, and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded with instructions to amend the sentence to reflect that the circuit court sentenced Defendant to twenty years of imprisonment, with all but time serve suspended, for conspiracy to rob Glover with a dangerous weapon. The State appealed, arguing that, in the announcement of the sentence, the circuit court intended to say "ten years" instead of "time served" and that the court later corrected the mistake. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record of the sentencing proceeding did not demonstrate that the circuit court made an "evident" mistake in the announcement of Defendant's sentence. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals upholding the suppression hearing court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that evidence of an out-of-court identification procedure, through which the victim of an alleged assault identified Defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, contained sufficient indicia of reliability to withstand a motion to suppress.At the conclusion of a suppression hearing, the presiding judge concluded that the second photo array identification procedure at issue in this case was admissible because she found it reliable by clear and convincing evidence. Ultimately, the jury found Defendant guilty of attempted robbery, second-degree assault, and reckless endangerment. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that the identification had sufficient indicia of reliability to overcome the procedure's suggestiveness. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the identification contained sufficient indicia of reliability to overcome the suggestive nature of the pretrial identification procedures. View "Small v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner coram nobis relief, holding that Petitioner waived the grounds underlying both claims supporting his petition.Petitioner pleaded guilty to third degree sexual offense and was required to register as a sex offender. In his second petition for a writ of coram nobis Petitioner argued that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary. The circuit court denied relief. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed after reaching the merits of Petitioner's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on a different ground, holding that Petitioner's claims were waived. View "Hyman v. State" on Justia Law