Articles Posted in Case law

| by

Under Maryland law, all criminal defendants are presumed innocent if and until they are convicted. A conviction can occur via a guilty plea or through a bench or jury trial. At a criminal trial, the prosecution must present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually committed the crime for which he or she is charged. Of course, even if the defendant is found to be guilty at trial, that person may appeal the conviction. The outcome of a criminal case can have serious, life-altering consequences for the person charged. In such matters, it is vitally important that a defendant consult with a local criminal attorney who is fully familiar with the laws and procedures in the Maryland court system.

In a recent case, the defendant was convicted of driving with a suspended license. According to the decision, the defendant was originally charged with failure to display a license to an officer, driving on a suspended license, driving without a license, and driving on a revoked license. He asserted that, while his license expired in 1990, it was suspended prior to that time. Since the defendant waived his right to a jury trial, the court tried the case under an agreed statement of facts and convicted him of only driving on a suspended license. The driver was sentenced to two years of incarceration, with all but one month suspended. The sentence also requires the defendant to submit to one year of supervised probation. The driver appealed.

On appeal, defendant argued that he could not be convicted of driving on a suspended license because it had expired. The State countered by arguing that the expiration of a license does not negate its suspended status. Under Maryland law, a person may not drive a motor vehicle on state roads while his or her license is suspended. The defendant raised an issue of first impression in the state, whether the suspension of a valid driver’s license survives the expiration. The court reviewed the applicable law and determined that allowing the expiration to cancel the suspension in this case would undermine the Legislature’s intent. For example, the state code requires the motor vehicle department to suspend a license if the license holder does not make any necessary child support payments. The court’s interpretation supports the notion that one’s driving privileges will remain suspended until payment of child support. Continue reading

| by

In a recent consolidated case, a Maryland court considered waiver of jury trial in two unrelated cases. In one case, the defendant was accused of sexual assault and rape and was convicted after a bench trial. Before the trial, the defense attorney explained the right to jury trial to the defendant and asked the defendant if he understood he was electing not to have a jury trial. The defendant said he understood.

After his conviction, the defendant petitioned for post-conviction relief and got permission to file a belated appeal. The conviction was reversed as to third-degree sexual offense but was affirmed on other counts. The intermediate appellate court held that the trial court had adequately announced its finding of waiver, but the validity of the waiver was not preserved for appeal.

The Court of Appeals agreed to review two cases to determine what showed compliance with the rule that a trial judge must determine and announce on the record that a knowing and voluntary waiver was made by the defendant. It also reviewed whether a defense attorney’s failure to object to a trial court’s failure to determine the waiver was knowing and voluntary precluded the case from review. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, an appellate court considered whether a judge could increase another judge’s sentence that was less than what was agreed upon in a plea agreement. The case arose in 1989 when a man was indicted for two first-degree murders and other major crimes. The State planned to ask for a life sentence without possibility of parole.

The defendant entered a guilty plea in exchange for a deal. He admitted that he and another man had planned to kill whatever they found in a particular apartment and steal the cocaine inside. They actually did steal cocaine and jewelry from the apartment. Each of the men shot and killed a person.

The plea deal’s terms were that the defendant would testify at the other man’s trial and enter guilty pleas as to three of the counts. In exchange, he would be sentenced to life imprisonment with all but 20 years suspended, and the State would withdraw its notice of intent to seek life without possibility of parole. The defendant’s sentencing was delayed, and he testified against the man. Continue reading

| by

Under Section 1-202 of the Criminal Procedure Article, an interpreter will be appointed for a criminal defendant when the defendant can’t readily understand or communicate in English and can’t understand the charge or help with his or her defense. The court is required to appoint a spoken language interpreter when it determines a defendant doesn’t understand English well enough to participate in the proceedings or help his or her attorney, or where the defendant or a witness doesn’t speak English sufficiently to be understood by the attorneys, the court, and the jury.

In a recent case, a defendant sought review of a judgment that affirmed his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, second-degree rape, and third-degree sexual offense. An intermediate appellate court had affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The defendant had come to the U.S. from Ghana four years before he was convicted and argued that the trial judge should have appointed an interpreter for his criminal trial. He asked the appellate court to review whether it was appropriate for the lower court to deny him an interpreter that he had requested.

The appellate court explained that the decision to appoint an interpreter is a two-part process. The first issue is whether the trial judge’s factual findings are clearly erroneous. If they aren’t, the reviewing court must then decide whether the judge abused his discretion in deciding whether or not to appoint the interpreter. Continue reading

| by

A recent appellate case considered the “dying declaration” exception to the rule against hearsay evidence, among other things. The defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, armed robbery, conspiracy, and possession of a firearm by a person not permitted to have one. Before the trial, he moved to suppress the victim’s identification of him as the killer. The hearing judge suppressed the identification, and the State of Maryland appealed.

The murder victim, Melvin Pate, had identified his shooter to a registered nurse at a Shock Trauma Unit after the shooting before he died. He had been shot in the face and taken to the hospital to be stabilized. A few days later, he was sent to the Shock Trauma Unit in a critical and very unstable condition. His spinal cord was severed in his neck, which left him a quadriplegic. His lung had collapsed, and he was breathing with the help of a ventilator and eating through a feeding tube.

The issue in this case was whether the victim’s identification of the shooter’s photograph counted as a dying declaration exception to hearsay rules. Hearsay is “an out-of-court statement” that is introduced to prove the truth of what is being asserted. Hearsay evidence is not admissible unless an exception applies. One exception applies when somebody is unavailable as a witness and that person is making a statement with the belief of imminent death. This is called the “dying declaration exception.” Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, a woman appealed her conviction of theft less than $100. The statutory punishment was imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or a fine not exceeding $500 or both. When the woman asked for a jury trial, her case was forwarded to a circuit court. The State of Maryland made a motion to send the case back to the District Court on the basis that she was not entitled to jury trial because the penalty for theft less than $100 was not more than 90 days. The court granted the state’s request.

The woman argued on appeal that the circuit court erred in sending the case back. She claimed she had a constitutional right to trial by jury simply by virtue of the fact she was charged with theft. The State argued that the appeal had to be dismissed because there was no final judgment. In Maryland, an appeal is usually only heard after entry of final judgment. One exception to the final judgment rule is the collateral order doctrine and this was what the defendant asserted on appeal.

In order for the collateral order doctrine to apply, there must be (1) conclusive determination of a question in dispute, (2) resolution of a critical issue, (3) resolution of an issue that is completely separate from the merits, and (4) a resolution that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment. Continue reading

| by

A recent case involved murder, assault, and the use of a handgun in a violent crime. The defendant was sentenced to 53 years of incarceration. The victim was shot outside his home as he was coming back from church with his wife. He survived and at trial identified the defendant as the person who shot him.

The defendant had a child with the victim’s daughter. The State presented a theory that the defendant shot the victim because he blamed him for an adverse custody determination. Before trial started, the defendant’s attorney submitted proposed questions for voir dire. Voir dire is the process by which a jury is selected.

One of the proposed questions referred to the fact that the defendant was African-American and asked the juror to answer whether that fact would impact his or her ability to be fair and impartial. There were 72 prospective jurors. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, a defendant was indicted and charged with burglary in the first, third, and fourth degree, plus theft of property over $1,000 and malicious destruction of property in connection with burglary of a house. At the end of the bench trial, the court determinded the defendant guilty of every count. He was sentenced to 15 years incarceration.

Before the bench trial, the defense attorney mentioned that he and his client had discussed the likelihood of a bench trial versus a jury trial. The client stated he wanted to be tried by the judge, not a jury. The court explained that if even one of the 12 jurors found he was not guilty, the defendant couldn’t be convicted.

The court also explained that a judge had to be certain by more than a reasonable doubt, but the primary difference was that it was one individual as opposed to 12 jurors. The judge asked if the defendant understood and the defendant claimed to understand. The judge found the jury waiver was free and voluntary. Continue reading

| by

A recent appellate case arose from an armed carjacking. The defendant and a companion approached the victim in Baltimore City, pointed guns at him and told him to get on the ground. The victim obeyed while the defendant and his companion took his wallet and keys.

When the victim got up, a teenager joined the group that forced him into his car. They drove him to an ATM under threat of being shot. The defendant used the ATM card, but could only withdraw a small sum. The defendant told the companion to tie up the victim and they drove to try to withdraw money from other ATMs. Finally, they drove the victim to a location and told him to drive off.

A detective later testified against the defendant. He claimed the victim identified the defendant from an array of photographs, but didn’t mention any injuries. Continue reading

| by

You may be wondering whether a separate Maryland criminal case can have repercussions in your current criminal case. The older case can impact how you are sentenced in a current case. However, the penalties in the earlier case cannot be transferred willy-nilly from the older case to the current case. In a 2013 case a defendant appealed his conviction for violating the Maryland bad check law. He asked the appellate court to review whether it was appropriate for a judge to order a defendant to pay restitution arising from an unrelated case.

The defendant had committed various crimes in Maryland and Delaware. The first set involved violations of Maryland’s Home Improvement Law. He had contracted with come women to perform home improvement work and failed to complete that work. He was charged for these as criminal offenses. He pled guilty and was required to pay monetary restitution to the women. The second type of case had to do with his bad check.

The defendant didn’t pay restitution to the women. The court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended sentences in each of the cases and to pay fines of $1000 in each case, which would be served at $10 per day of confinement. These were consecutive sentences. The defendant appealed. Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
18310 Montgomery Village
Ave #250
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801Phone: (301) 519-2801Fax: (301) 519-2802

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design