Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was charged with two counts each of possession of cocaine and distribution of cocaine. On the day of trial, Petitioner waived his right to a jury. Petitioner then pled not guilty as to one of the distribution charges. After a plea colloquy, the trial court found the plea to be “knowing and voluntary.” Petitioner was found guilty of distribution of cocaine after a bench trial. Petitioner appealed, contesting the validity of the court’s acceptance of his jury trial waiver. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s announcement after the plea colloquy that Petitioner’s actions were “knowing and voluntary” was sufficient to establish that the judge analyzed the disposition and appearance of Petitioner in order to determine Petitioner’s actual understanding and voluntariness for both the jury waiver and the plea. View "Morgan v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of first, third, and fourth degree burglary, theft under $1000, and malicious destruction of property having a value of less than $500. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial judge’s acceptance of his jury trial waiver. The court of special appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial judge sufficiently satisfied the announcement requirement under Md. Rule 4-246(b). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) because the trial judge’s announcement did not state that Defendant’s jury trial waiver was both knowing and voluntary, the judge did not comply with Rule 4-246(b); and (2) the appropriate sanction for the judge’s noncompliance with Rule 4-246 was reversal. View "Szwed v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner had health care insurance as a member of the United Healthcare Select HMO (the HMO) when he visited a healthcare provider (GCM) for an x-ray of his knee. After Petitioner paid a bill he received from GCM for the x-ray exam he filed a complaint alleging that the bills GCM sent Petitioner were an illegal attempt to "balance bill" an HMO member in violation of State law and that the bills constituted an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of the Consumer Protection Act (the Act). The circuit court dismissed the complaint. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the state HMO law prohibiting balance billing by health care providers as part of the legal foundation for the establishment of HMOs does not include a right of action by an HMO member against a healthcare provider for violation of that prohibition; but (2) an HMO member may bring an action under the Act against a healthcare provider who improperly bills the member in violation of the state HMO law in a way that also violates the prohibition against unfair or deceptive trade practices in the Act.View "Scull v. Groover, Christie, & Merritt, P.C." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner, a dentist, was convicted of various sexual crimes against a minor patient. In the circuit court, while self-represented, Petitioner filed a petition for DNA testing, requesting that the clothes the victim wore on the day of her rape be tested. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. Petitioner appealed, arguing that, under Maryland Rule 4-707(b), he was entitled to appointed counsel at the hearing on the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Rule 4-707(b) does not entitle an indigent petitioner to be appointed counsel for the purposes of a petition under Md. Code Ann. Crim. Proc. 8-201; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in not considering whether to appoint counsel for Defendant for purposes of the petition under section 8-201; and (3) the circuit court applied the correct standard in ruling on the petition under section 8-201. View "Fuster v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with conspiracy to commit theft, making a false statement to the police while under arrest, and related offenses after the vehicle in which he was an occupant was stopped by police officers and the police discovered multiple fake credit cards in the wallet of a female passenger. The police then arrested all occupants of the vehicle. Petitioner filed a motion to suppress, contending that the evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal stop. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant appealed, contending that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. The court of special appeals held that police had probable cause to arrest Petitioner and therefore any evidence obtained by police as the fruit of that arrest was not subject to suppression. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner's claim was not properly before the appellate courts because Petitioner waived it by not raising it before the circuit court.View "Ray v. State" on Justia Law

Appellees in this case were seventeen-year-olds who would have been eighteen by the 2008 general election. After exhausting their administrative remedies, Plaintiffs filed separate complaints in the circuit court against the Maryland State Boar of Elections (MSBE), alleging that the MSBE violated several provisions of the Election Law Article by prohibiting seventeen-year-olds who would be eighteen by the next general election from casting any votes in non-partisan primary elections for county school boards. The circuit court concluded that the voter eligibility requirements of the Maryland Constitution did not apply to non-partisan elections for Boards of Education, municipal elections, and local ballot questions not mandated by the Constitution. The Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court and held that seventeen-year-olds who will turn eighteen by close of voter registration before the next general election were constitutionally and statutorily entitled to vote in primary elections, whether partisan or non-partisan, subject to all other provisions of the Constitution and statutory election law. Remanded.View "State Bd. of Elections v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Respondents each suffered on-the-job accidents, resulting in permanent partial disability. In both cases, at least one of the Respondent's injuries was a "scheduled injury" and the other was an "unscheduled injury." The Workers' Compensation Commission awarded Respondents benefits at the "second tier" rate. In making the awards pursuant to Md. Stat. Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-629, the Commission combined, in each case, the awards for the scheduled and unscheduled injuries. Both Robinson's and Anderson's employers appealed. The circuit court reversed the Commission's awards. The court of special appeals reversed the circuit court's judgments, holding that the Commission could combine awards for scheduled injuries with awards for other cases to determine whether the second tier compensation rate was applicable. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that it is permissible under the Workers' Compensation Act to combine compensation awards in order to determine which of the three levels of compensation prescribed by Md. Stat. Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-628 through 9-630 is appropriate. View "Montgomery County v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The supervisory employee exception to the handgun law allows such an employee to carry a handgun, with the employer's permission, within the enclosed premises of the business in which the employee works. Petitioner, the head of security for a nightclub, was arrested by the county police for carrying a handgun without a permit in the open parking lot of the nightclub. Petitioner filed a lawsuit against the county and three of the police officers involved in his arrest for a violation of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, false arrest and imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, contending that his arrest was illegal because the parking lot should be considered to be "within the confines" of the nightclub. A jury found in favor of Petitioner on his state constitutional claim and on the false arrest and imprisonment claim. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that the parking lot of the club was not "within the confines of the business establishment." The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that when Petitioner left the "confines" of the nightclub and took his handgun into the parking lot, he was no longer with the supervisory employee exception to the handgun law.View "Blue v. Prince George's County" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Montgomery County Council adopted Resolution No. 17-149 (Resolution), which “changed” three contract provisions for fiscal year 2012 in the pre-existing collectively-bargained agreement (CBA) with members of the County’s police force. Specifically, the Resolution changed certain employment benefits of the CBA. The Fraternal Order of the Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35 filed suit against the County and the Council, challenging the legality of the Council’s actions in adopting the Resolution and the actions of the Council and the County in implementing the changes in the resolution. The circuit court declared that the Council’s actions were permissible under the Police Labor Relations Act (PLRA), the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and the CBA. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Council acted within its authority under the PLRA in deciding not to fund fully - and thereby, to change - certain benefits in the CBA, where the changes were fiscal in nature and the County Executive and the FOP did not submit a re-negotiated agreement to the Council. View "Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 v. Montgomery County" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the State Center Project, a $1.5 billion redevelopment project intended to revitalize property owned by the State in Baltimore. In 2005, the State issued a public request for qualifications to solicit a master developer for the project. The State Center, LLC was chosen as the master developer. The Maryland Department of General Services (“DGS”), the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) and the State Center, LLC negotiated for the Project, entering a series of agreements between 2007 and 2010 to complete the Project in a timely manner. In 2010, Plaintiffs, property owners in downtown Baltimore and taxpayers, filed suit against the DGS, MDOT, and the State Center and its subsidiaries, seeking a declaratory judgment that the formative contracts for the Project were void and seeking an injunction to halt the Project. The trial court voided the formative contracts, concluding that they violated the State Procurement Law. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the circuit court and remanded with directions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice, holding that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the doctrine of laches due to an unreasonable delay in bringing their claims, causing prejudice to the defendants. View "State Ctr., LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. P’ship" on Justia Law