DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States I 9 No. Suprorne Court, U.S. FILED fl1 I r IN THE OFFICE Or IHE CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PQ A -PETITIONER (Your Name) SAfQ -RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO el~~ 0~.-kv?f F p 4 J P )VAK (NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON ERITS OF YOUR CASE) PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Lg Pe (Your Name) //iOo wc/fivileol kk!~' W, (Address) cIiN), )' (City, State, Zip Code) (Phone Number) QUESTION(S) PRESENTED L Whether The Maryland Appellate Courts In Concluding Pena Failed To Sustain His Burden Of Proving He Did Not Voktarily And Knowingly Enter A ('. .11... D.....L UF.sL. I r TI... EL.. ...,# 0 U ww: Lfl &C ..n Crime nS BV-,V - To Tesbfy At The Coram t4obs !-tearing That Before Pleading Gu4ty Defense ( .......d fd.,4 *.4..... LE rt 11.... d...i. A....1 cL. .....4. r Had an ire r I..J rn Crime Erred Or Abused Its Discretion Since Those Conclusions Conflict WIh his Court's Bradshaw v. Stump! Opinion That The Plea Record Suffices? (a) Whether Since his Court In 'Thadshaw Y. Stumpf Scaled Back The Presumption Suggested ifl Henderson v. Morgan. 426 US. 637, 96 SCt. 2253,49 LEn 105 (1976) Whether Without Defense Cornsel Testifying At The Hearing The Maryland Appellate Courts erred Or Abused Its Discretion ifl Concluding Base 01iy On The Coram Nobs Court's Presumptive Knowledge Of Defense Coursal Repitation Of Being MindK Of His Clients Riita That Pane Pleaded gitty Voluntarily With The Understanding Of The Crime Elements? (b). Whether The Maryland Appellate Courts Erred Or Abused its Discretion In Looking Beyond The GuIty Plea Record To Conclude The Initial Appearance Report Serve As Proof Pens Had Been Advised Or Understood TI.... CL.. .... -TI.... i': .. e TI........ Ca A.... I... r%-Ml C rns .nce - -n-; %.4 nC With This Court's Controlling Precedent Decided In Bradshaw v. Stump!? IL Whether The Maryland Appellate Courts Erred Or Abused Its Discretion In Concluding That The Trial Judge Use Of The 2001 Convictions And FIteen Year Sentence Invand Under Bradshaw v. Stump! As Reasons For imposing A Consecutive Twenty-Frye Year Sentence Did Not Constitute Significant Collateral Consejences? LIST OF PARTIES F] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows: iIID STATEMENT OF THE CASE . 4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ............................................................................... 6 CONCLUSION .22 APPENDIX A ORDER of the decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is unreported Luis A. Pena v. State of Maryland, (Petition Docket No. 141, Sept. Term, 2018; (No. 2578, . Sept. Term--2016), decided July 31, 2018 .................................................... (Appx. i-a). APPENDIX B Opinion of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland is unreported at Luis . A. Pena v. State of Maryland, No. 2578, Sept. Term, 2016, Filed April 6, 2018 .......... (Appx. 2-b thru-8-b). APPENDIX C Unreported Order Of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland denying Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis on January 19, 2017. ............. (Appx. 9-c) if CASES PAGE NUMBER Abrams v. State, 176 Md. App. 600,622-23(2007):. .......................................................... 12 Boykins v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L Ed. 2d (1966).......................................................5 Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175,125 S. Ct. 2398(2005) ........... 3,4,5,8,9,11,12,13,15j8 Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 25 L. Ed 747(1970)................................................5 Gideon v. WainriQht, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792(1963)...................................................18 Graves v. State, 215 Md. App. 339(2013) ...................................................................,2,12 Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 49 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1976) ............................ 3,5,9,11, 12 Luis A. Pena V. State of Maryland. (Petition Docket No. 141, Sept. Term, 2018; COA-PET- 2578-2016. .............................................................................................................. ............. 1 Luis A. Pena v. State of Maryland, No. 2578 Sept., Term, 2016, decided April 6, 2018...1 Miller v. State, 185 Md. App. 293, (2009) ............................................................. 2,12,14,15. Rich v. State, 230 Md. App. 537, (2016)..............................................................................6 Rich v. State, 454 Md. 448, (2017) .................................................................................. 6,7 Smith v. State, 443 Md. 572, (2015) ..................................................................6,7,8,9,10 State v. Daughtry, 419 Md. 35, 42, 18 A. 3d 60(2011);...........................................2,3,10,11 United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 30 L. Ed. 2d 592, 92S. Ct. 589 (1972)...............18 STATUTES AND RULES Title 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) See Sup. Ct. A. 13.1:.... ,1 Md. Rule 4-242 (c).................................................. 6,7,10,11,14 i1rI••II :i- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. OPINIONS BELOW II I For cases from federal courts: The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix to the petition and is [ ] reported at ; or, [1 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is unpublished. The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix to the petition and is [ ] reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [ ] is unpublished. [ ] For cases from state courts: The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at Appendix to the petition and is [1 reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, {), is unpublished. The opinion of the CptIc 1(1L court appears at Appendix to the petition and is [ ] reported at ; or, [ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or, [J is unpublished. 1. JURISDICTION [ ] For cases from federal courts: The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was [ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case. [ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the following date: , and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix [ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and including (date) on ____________________ (date) in Application No. A______ The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). [/] For cases from state courts: The date on which the highest state court decided my case was A copy of that decision appears at Appendix A % [ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date: and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix [] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted to and including (date) on ________________ (date) in Application No. A_______ The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a). YeIs CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED A .-4 T I c4 ('.- .-4 +- Sixth rt , ii iurnc: IL I 0 The IJI IILU )LaLS L,L/flLILUL)L/I STATEMENT OF THE CASE On February 5, 2001 a Baltimore County Grand Jury, returned a criminal indictment against Luis Alberto Pena, charging numerous criminal offense which included Robbery with a Dangerous and Deadly Weapon and Use of a Handgun in the Commission of a Felony or Crime of Violence. September 11, 2001, without the nature and elements of armed robbery and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence offenses having being explicitly reviewed on the record with Pena by defense counsel at the 2001 plea proceedings. Petitioner Pena waved a jury trial and submitted his case on agreed statement of fact, entered a pleaded guilty to the indictment counts charging robbery with a '-,-1I. - -' .-. i4-,.. .-. .-I.-. 41.-. dangerousanu weapon u o hananuundgun commissio n 0fl • n Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Pena on December 5, 2001 was sentenced to two concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment. Petitioner dd not seek leave to appeal. 11 Under the holdings of State v. Daughtry, 419 Md. 35, (2011) by way of a petition for writ of error coram nobis relief filed on July 28, 2016. Pena challenged the guilty pleas he entered on September 11, 2001 and sentences imposed December 5, 2001. After holding a hearing on January 18, 2017, Judge Judith C. Ensor ruled in open court by dictating into the record the reasons for denying coram nobis relief. Then subsequently, thereafter, issued a written order denying coram nobs relief on January 19, 2017, Pena filed a timely notice of appeal on January 31, 2017, appealing the Honorable Judge Judith C. Ensors on the record FNI. In an unrelated case, Pena at a bench tñal was convicted of attempted murder, use of a handin in the commission of a crime of violence, and a host of other, crimes. January 31,2002. he was sentenced to twenty-live years imprisonment for attempted murder and to a concurrent term of fifteen years (the first five years without the possibility of parole) for the handgun offense, with those sentences to run consecutive to any outstardng sentence. denial of coram nobis relief January 18, 2017, and subsequently, thereafter, filed February13, 2017 a timely supplement notice of appeal appealing Judge Judith C. Ensor written order dated January 19, 2017 denying coram nobis relief. The Court of Special Appeals issued an order on April 5, 2017 that required Pena to file a brief before or on May 15, 2017. Pena filed on April 25, 2017 a motion for extension of time of the May 15, 2017 filing deadline to include until June 1, 2017 because prison officials had not provided Pena with that actual order issued April 5, 2017 by the Court of Special Appeals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALFREDO JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Colorado --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PHILIP L. TORREY Counsel of Record CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND CLINICAL PROGRAM HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 6 Everett Street, Suite 3105 Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-0638 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Padilla v. Kentucky, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires counsel to provide correct legal advice to noncitizen-defendants about the immigration con- sequences of a prospective guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 368–69 (2010). If federal law is “succinct, clear, and explicit” about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, then defense counsel’s duty to explain those consequences is equally clear. Id. at 368. In con- trast, defense counsel need
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions
    Maryland Law Review Volume 38 | Issue 2 Article 7 Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions, 38 Md. L. Rev. 242 (1978) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol38/iss2/7 This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVEY OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS THE INHERENT POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - STATE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION v. CLARK Maryland courts have frequently claimed an inherent power to review and correct arbitrary, illegal, capricious, or unreasonable administrative decisions.' Recently, however, in State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Clark,2 the Maryland Court of Appeals restricted the scope of this power by finding that a circuit court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether administrative authority to reduce a real property assessment pursuant to article 81, section 67 of the Maryland Code was exercised in an arbitrary fashion.3 The Court of Appeals held that the circuit courts' jurisdiction is limited to questions concerning the constitutionality of the administrator's actions. 4 Clark implicitly recognized that circuit courts 1. E.g., Zion Evangelical Luth. Church v. State Highway Admin., 276 Md.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
    Their Story: The Legacy of Justice in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County The Honorable Sheila R. Tillerson Adams Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Honorable Albert W. Northrop Born in Illinois, the Honorable Albert W. Northrop is the son of an U.S. Air Force chaplain. As a result, he and his family moved every few years. Judge Northrop attended University of Maryland at Munich Campus, in Munich, Germany. Shortly after, Judge Northrop transferred to University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland where he received his bachelor’s of arts degree in June 1969. Following, he returned to the University of Maryland School of Law and received his law degree in 1974. One year later, in 1975, he was admitted to the Maryland Bar. He entered private practice of law in February 1975. Judge Northrop was appointed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County in June 2006. Judge Northrop served as an Associate Judge of District Court of Maryland, District 5, Prince George’s County from January 2003 to June 2006. Judge Northrop was sworn in as a Judge of the Orphans Court for Prince George’s County in August 1986. During his time as Judge of Orphans Court, Judge Northrop co-authored, “Decedents’ Estates in Maryland” published by Mitchie Law Book Publishing. In October 2017, Judge Northrop retired from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Honorable C. Philip Nichols, Jr. A fifth generation Prince Georgian, C. Philip Nichols, Jr. graduated from Georgetown University in 1969 and received his law degree from University of Baltimore School of Law in 1973.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia
    Notes Federal and Local Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia The 1982 trial of John Hinckley for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan brought to the public's attention a unique fea- ture of the criminal justice system in the District of Columbia. Although federal and state charges never are joined together for trial, federal and D.C. Code charges may be joined in one indictment under section 11- 502(3) of the D.C. Code,' and tried before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.' In the Hinckley case, the federal prosecutor used section 11-502(3) to join three federal and ten D.C. Code charges. This joinder required the district court to determine whether to use both federal and D.C. Code evidentiary standards during the trial, or only one standard. The court ruled that only federal standards would be used,' and therefore placed the 1. Under D.C. CODE ANN. § 11-502(3) (1981), the United States District Court has jurisdiction over "[any offense under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia which offense is joined in the same information or indictment with any Federal offense." A similar but more limited jurisdictional statute is found at D.C. CODE ANN. § 23-311(b) (1981): Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment or information as provided in subsection (a) [offenses charged are of similar character or based on same transaction] even though one or more is in violation of the laws of the United States and another is in violation of the laws applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia and may be prosecuted as pro- vided in Section 11-502(3).
    [Show full text]
  • Summons and Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample
    Summons And Complaint Circuit Court Virginia Sample Ethan still dibbing defiantly while undescendable Jameson curse that metage. Mathias remains secularistic after Hagen overwriting anticipatively or courts any yammer. Panzer and cosher Clare unburden his falx intoning emits untidily. Responding to contest Divorce let Law poverty-help Center. If the plaintiff fails to pit the summons and complaint on a. Motion for complaint if you sent a claim, property damage is software accessed through physical custody sample complaint and summons circuit court virginia have been received a summons which you and. For special interrogatories in the system and circuit in which you can sign. In order for reading to cramp a posture in Virginia either tree or your in must break a. What you might be added to a sample complaint form to do not believe those addresses are sample response to answer to keep your papers initiating papers. Where they I file a Conciliation Court claim If and case involves bad checks the superior should be filed in middle District seven of separate county retain the checks were. Docket no response explaining what each defense attorney in virginia and circuit court summons. Juhtumeid on child custody order vacating default by name search, which together can search online, subpoena relates and circuit and summons complaint court payments online electronic system provides helpful information. Service failure the summons and complaint on a corporation is governed by Fed R Civ P 4h. Clerks under penalty for summons and complaint circuit court virginia sample from abuse claims? Rule 35 The Summons Va R Sup Ct 35 Casetext.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of the Courts of the DC Circuit
    The Evolution of the Courts of the D.C. Circuit (For almost 200 years, the judicial system of the District of Columbia dealt with a commixture of federal and local concerns born of its unique character as the capital of all the states, yet not a state. Faced with the needs of a growing population and an increasingly complex federal government, Congress repeatedly reorganized the District of Columbia courts, reallocating jurisdiction for federal and local matters between the various courts, sometimes unifying the courts, sometimes dividing them. The federal courts that constitute today’s District of Columbia Circuit emerged in their current role in 1971.) The Early Years Congress established the District of Columbia in 1791. However, the District’s judiciary was not created until ten years later, three months after Congress and the President, John Adams, set up shop in Washington. During the intervening decade the courts of Maryland and Virginia continued to be used in the portion carved out of each state. After establishing a framework for the federal judiciary for the rest of the nation, Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of February 27, 1801, creating a Circuit Court to meet the needs of the District of Columbia. The Court’s jurisdiction was broad, encompassing not only most of the authority of a federal circuit court, including its appellate jurisdiction, but also that of a state trial court. The act divided the District into two counties, Alexandria and Washington. The three judges were required to hold four sessions a year in each county. When it acted as a state court, it applied the law and procedures of Virginia and Maryland, depending on which side of the river it sat.
    [Show full text]
  • New Role of State Supreme Courts As Engines of Court Reform
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 81 NOVEMBER 2006 NUMBER 5 BRENNAN LECTURE THE NEW ROLE OF STATE SUPREME COURTS AS ENGINES OF COURT REFORM RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIANA* In this speech delivered for the annual Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Lecture on State Courts and Social Justice, the Honorable Randall T. Shepard examines the growing role of state supreme courts in remaking the American system of justice. The vast size of the state court system, the flexibility of state rulemaking authority, and recent changes in the way state courts are financed have placed these high courts at the forefront of efforts to administerand reform their states' court systems. Chief Justice Shepard explores three major areas of court reform led by state supreme courts. First, state high courts have reformed the American jury by making it more inclusive and representative, and by improving its decisionmaking capabilities. Second, these courts have implemented new initiatives to ensure equal access to justice by providing legal assistance to low-income individuals in civil cases, creating pro bono programs, and assisting pro se litigants. Third, state supreme courts have fostered equal opportunity by addressing bias and disparate treatment within the court system, and by working to ensure that the legal profes- sion itself is open to all people. Finally, Chief Justice Shepard describes a range of other ways in which state supreme courts have been remaking their states' court systems, from creating specialized courts to training judges in the sciences. In a profession that is fond of traditionand slow to change, many of these reforms could only proceed with leadership from state high courts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Movement to Reorganize the Court of Appeals of Maryland, 6 Md
    Maryland Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 2 Article 1 The oM vement to Reorganize the Court of Appeals of Maryland William C. Walsh Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Legal History, Theory and Process Commons Recommended Citation William C. Walsh, The Movement to Reorganize the Court of Appeals of Maryland, 6 Md. L. Rev. 119 (1942) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol6/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maryland Law Review VOLUME VI FEBRUARY, 1942 NuMBR 2 THE MOVEMENT TO REORGANIZE THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND By WILLIAM C. WALSH* The Constitution of 1867 established the present-Mary- land Court of Appeals, and as so established three-quarters of a century ago, it has continued without change. The Court is composed of the seven Chief Judges of the seven Judicial Circuits into which the State outside of Bal- timore City is divided, and of an eighth Judge especially elected to the Court by the voters of Baltimore City, which comprises the Eighth Circuit. In addition to their appel- late duties, the County members preside at trials, sit in equity cases, and perform all other customary nisi prius judicial functions in their respective circuits. The Balti- more City member performs appellate work only, except in those rare instances where he is called upon to sit in a habeas corpus case.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Maryland Judiciary
    3 . \ ""£ " D D D RJ mm ^.J Ui © Q\ MMLYlMm JUBIQAMWJ ANNUAL REPORT of the MARYLAND JUDICIARY 1983-1984 Administrative Office of the Courts Courts of Appeal Building Post Office Box 431 Annapolis, Maryland 21404 301/269-2141 I m RECEIVED nuv zOiybb LAW L!3RA,JvY 7TH CIRCUIT UUURf-LlbKArtii u&MJia uibK. PRINQ&fiEORGFS mUWPf COVER PHOTOGRAPHS 1. District Court Multi-Service Center—Catonsville, Baltimore County 2. The District Court Building—Annapolis, Anne Arundel County 3. District Court Multi-Service Center—Glen Burnie, Anne Arundel County 4. District Court Multi-Service Center—Denton, Caroline County 5. District Court Multi-Service Center—Essex, Baltimore County 6. Multi-Service Courthouse Complex—Frederick, Frederick County I 7. District Court Multi-Service Center—Bel Air, Harford County 8. District Court Multi-Service Center—Ellicott City, Howard County 9. The Court Annex Building—Westminster, Carroll County 10. District Court Multi-Service Center—Elkton, Cecil County 11. District Court Multi-Service Center—Centreville, Queen Anne's County LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Page 1 District Court Multi-Service Center, Ellicott City, Howard County 3 Multi-Service Courthouse Complex, Frederick, Frederick County 8 District Court Multi-Service Center, Bel Air, Harford County 15 District Court Multi-Service Center, Ellicott City, Howard County 16 District Court Multi-Service Center, Elkton, Cecil County 16 District Court Building, Annapolis, Anne Arundel County 17 District Court Multi-Service Center, Denton, Caroline County 18 District Court Multi-Service
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Business and Technology Court Task Force Report
    MARYLAND BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY COURT TASK FORCE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 1 III. HOUSE BILL 15 (Chapter 10 of the Maryland Acts of 2000).......... 2 IV. INPUT FROM THE BUSINESS AND LEGAL COMMUNITIES .. 4 V. EXPERIENCE OF OTHER STATES ............................................... 5 VI. FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 5 VII. EXPEDITED APPEALS ................................................................... 12 VIII. ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).............................................. 14 IX. ELECTRONIC FILING..................................................................... 15 X. CONCLUSION.................................................................................. 17 APPENDIX A (Input From The Maryland Business And Legal Communities) ........................................................ 19 APPENDIX B (Experience Of Other States)................................................. 23 APPENDIX C (List of Members).................................................................. 26 1316871 i MARYLAND BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY COURT TASK FORCE REPORT Created by House Bill 15 Chapter 10 of the Maryland Acts of 2000 Wilbur D. Preston, Jr. Chairman Hon. Steven I. Platt Vice-Chairman Robert D. Kalinoski Hon. Charles B. Day Susan M. Souder James I. Keane Wesley D. Blakeslee
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report Maryland Judiciary
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MARYLAND JUDICIARY '.'< 1987 .. 1988 () fAfl ~ ,,....<:-.0 \1\ \.ft '"--lita /12.55 0 i\NNUAL EPORT OF THE l\!1[ARYLAND JUDICIARY 1987-1988 N~';:;;'JRS tJfDW 8 1985 AQQUl.~t~i'l:·eN·S Administrative Office of the Courts Courts of Appeal Building Post Office Box 431 Annapolis, Maryland 21404 3011974-2141 COVER: Restored Stained Glass Dome, Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., Courthouse, Baltimore Report prepared by the Administrative Office of the Courts Michael V. O'Malley Peter 1 Lally Faye Gaskin Nonna P. Gainer Photographs: Courtesy of Maryland Department of Economic and Employment Development-Office of Tourism Development --- -----------~------- ------ Letter of Transmittal .............................................. v Introduction ..................................................... Vll Judicial Revenues and Expenditures ................................. 1 The Maryland Courts .................. ,........................... 7 The Court of Appeals ......................................... 11 The Court of Special Appeals .............. ,................... 21 The Circuit Courts ........................................... 33 The District Court ........................................... 73 Judicial Administration ........................................... 87 Administrative Office of the Courts ............................. 89 Judicial Education and Information Services. .. 90 Judicial Information Systems. .. .. .. .. 90 Judicial Special Projects
    [Show full text]
  • The Court of Appeals of Maryland: Roles, Work and Performance - Part I
    University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law Faculty Scholarship Francis King Carey School of Law Faculty 1977 The Court of Appeals of Maryland: Roles, Work and Performance - Part I William L. Reynolds University of Maryland School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Courts Commons Digital Commons Citation Reynolds, William L., "The Court of Appeals of Maryland: Roles, Work and Performance - Part I" (1977). Faculty Scholarship. 744. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs/744 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Francis King Carey School of Law Faculty at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maryland Law Review VOLUME 37 1977 NUMBER 1 @Copyright Maryland Law Review, Inc. 1977 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND: ROLES, WORK AND PERFORMANCE-Part I WILLIAM L. REYNOLDS, II* Appellate courts play a central role in our legal system, yet their operations are not always well understood. Interest in problems of appellate decision-making led me to undertake this study of the Court of Appeals of Maryland. My curiosity was aroused in part by the controversial recommendation that the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court be modified to provide that Court with greater control over its docket.' Because the Court of Appeals of Maryland at present has almost complete control of its docket, it seemed a likely court to study for the effect of such control on the quality of decisions.
    [Show full text]