Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's convictions for second-degree assault and second-degree child abuse by a custodian, holding that Defendant, an Afrian American man, was prejudiced by the fact that the Sheriff's deputies who served as courtroom bailiffs during his trial wore thin blue line face masks, as required by the Sheriff.On appeal, Defendant argued that the bailiffs' display of the thin blue line flag on their face masks violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The court of special appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the display of the thin blue line flag did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial. The Court of Appeals vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that the bailiffs' display of the thin blue line flag and the pro-law enforcement message that it conveyed was inherently prejudicial to Defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial. View "Smith 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 Petitioner's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that Petitioner's claim did not fall within the category of claims cognizable under Maryland Rule 4-345(a).In 2002, Petitioner pled guilty to committing two murders when he was seventeen years old and was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and its progeny, Petitioner asserted that his sentence did not include a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation" because Maryland parole laws do not provide a right to State-furnished counsel to assist an inmate during the parole process. The lower courts rejected Petitioner's arguments. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner's argument that he has a right to State-furnished counsel at a future parole hearing was not cognizable as grounds for a motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "Farmer 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 Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that Appellant's sentencing proceeding complied with the constitutional protections recognized in recent decisions of the Supreme Court.In 2010, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree felony murder and other crimes for his involvement in a burglary at the age of sixteen that resulted in a murder. Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison with all but sixty years suspended for the murder conviction and will be eligible for parole at the time he is forty-two years old. In 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, as interpreted in recent decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner's sentence did not amount to a de facto sentence of life without parole, and his sentence was not grossly disproportionate. View "Jedlicka v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that ambiguity in a sentencing court's remarks about a juvenile offender's post-offense conduct and character, when made before the Supreme Court issued its decisions governing the sentencing of a juvenile offender to life without the possibility of parole, requires that the offender receive a new sentencing hearing for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.Petitioner was seventeen years old when he committed a series of murders. In Maryland, Petitioner pled guilty to six counts of first-degree murder. The sentencing court sentenced him to the maximum sentence of six terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole. After the Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that because opposing inferences could be drawn as to whether the sentencing judge determined that Petitioner was not "the rare juvenile offender whose crimes reflects irreparable corruption" for whom the Eighth Amendment allows a sentence of life without parole. View "Malvo v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of special appeals reversing Defendant's sentence on the ground that the district court's failure to advise Defendant of the duration of his probation, as required by Maryland Rule 4-346(a), rendered the sentence illegal, holding that the violation of Rule 4-346(a) did not render the sentence illegal.In imposing Defendant's split sentence of twenty-five years, suspending five years, the court mentioned probation but failed to advise Defendant of the probation's duration. However, the court did include a five-year term and conditions of probation in a probation order signed by Defendant and his counsel before leaving the courtroom. The court of special appeals reversed and remanded to the circuit court to strike the five-year probation from the sentence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the sentencing judge's error constituted clear error, but not one that rendered the sentence illegal. View "State v. Bustillo" 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's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's coram nobis petition.Petitioner had twenty-year old convictions for forgery and fraud/identity theft, which rendered her ineligible to receive the license required to work as a mortgage loan originator under Maryland law. After three appeals, the intermediate appellate court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, considering the legislative purpose of the Maryland mortgage loan originator license statute and the circumstances of this case, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of coram nobis. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the court of special appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of one count of second-degree assault, holding that it was harmless error to fail to propound a voir dire question regarding Defendant's right to remain silent and not testify where Defendant actually testified.During trial, Defendant requested a voir dire question on her right not to testify, but the trial court declined to ask the question. During trial, Defendant testified in her defense. In reversing, the court of special appeals determined that the trial court erred under Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), and that the error was not harmless. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the Kazadi error in this case was subject to the harmless error doctrine; and (2) the Kazadi error was harmless. View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and related gun offenses, holding that it was not reversible error for a circuit court to give a destruction or concealment of evidence jury instruction based on evidence that Defendant cut off his dreadlocks between the time of the crime and the arrest.At the time of the shooting leading to Defendant's convictions, Defendant wore dreadlocks. One month later, a witness recognized Defendant with a very short, close-cropped haircut and called 911. Defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted. The court of special appeals affirmed, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to generate a destruction or concealment of evidence jury instruction, but it would have been preferable to have customized the jury instruction to describe with specificity the cutting of hair between the time of the crime and the arrest. The court then ruled that any instructional error was harmless. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that it would have been more precise for the circuit court to have tailored the consciousness of guilt instruction specifically describe a change in appearance instead of a destruction or concealment of evidence, but any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Rainey v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals ruling that it is possible for an accessory before the fact to aid, on impulse and without premeditation, another in the commission of a homicide with the intent to kill, holding that a defendant may be liable as an accessory before the fact to second-degree murder.After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of second-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that an accessory before the fact to second-degree intent to kill murder cannot be guilty of second-degree murder because he necessarily deliberates and premeditates the murder. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, based on the Court's holdings in Mitchell v. State, 363 Md. 130 (2001) and Apostoledes v. State, 323 Md. 456 (1992), an accessory before the fact does not necessarily premeditate. View "Garcia v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the court of special appeals concluding that Defendant had waived his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion, holding that Defendant did not waive his right to appeal the suppression ruling.Defendant, who was indicted on charges of possessing a regulated firearm after having been convicted of a crime of violence and other crimes, moved to suppress the gun and loaded magazine that police recovered inside a closed overnight bag during a warrantless search of Defendant's hotel room. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, the State filed a superseding indictment under a new case number to add additional charges. When Defendant renewed his motion to suppress the transcript and all exhibits from the motion filed in the first case were admitted and incorporated into the record. The handgun and magazine were admitted into evidence during Defendant's ensuing trial. The court of special appeals denied Defendant's appeal, concluding that Defendant waived his right to appeal the suppression ruling by making no objection to the introduction of the challenged evidence at trial. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision below, holding that Defendant did not waive his right to appeal the suppression ruling. View "Huggins v. State" on Justia Law