Sign In
Free Newsletter
MARCUS WILLIAM TUNSTALL v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, Marcus William Tunstall appeals the denial by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of his petition for writ of actual innocence without a hearing.
RUDOLPH McNEIL v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Because we conclude that McNeil’s petition was based on evidence that he had obtained in time to file a motion for a new trial, we hold that his petition failed to state a claim for a writ of actual innocence
SHEA HAYES v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Upon remand, the court must, in accordance with CP § 8-301(a)(1), evaluate whether the newly discovered evidence claimed by Mr. Hayes “creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result [of the trial] may have been different.”
SHAFIQ UMAR, et al. v. KHURRAM SHAHZAD
This was not a typical commercial lawsuit between parties on the opposite sides of a contract. Rather, this was an action for, among other things, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy brought by one seller against his co-owner and the purchaser of the station.
IN RE: MICHAEL C.
Appellant contends that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made, as well as a kitchen knife found on his person on school property.
RICARDO VALDEZ VELA v. STATE OF MARYLAND
An online news article, published more than a decade after appellant's trial, was not admissible or even capable of being admitted at appellant's original trial, and therefore was not newly discovered evidence under the statute governing petitions for writ of actual innocence.
SAM IVOR a/k/a KING SAM IVOR v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Ivor claims that the poll was defective because the clerk failed to poll the forelady. As a result, he asserts that “it is impossible to know if the jury was unanimous.”
MALCOLM J. BRYANT v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Because his present claim of purported sentence illegality is based, in essence, upon a claim that was previously raised in, considered by, and rejected by this Court in his direct appeal, we shall hold that the present claim is barred by the law of the case doctrine.
IN RE: TARIQ S.
Tariq contends that there was no evidence from which a rational fact-finder could conclude that he committed a breaking and entering, a required element of both third and fourth-degree burglary, and, further, that there was not sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that he committed theft.
STATE OF MARYLAND v. BRANDON CARTER and STATE v. JAMES MAJOR
Did appellees have a legitimate expectation of privacy in vehicle that neither of them owned? Despite probable cause to search the vehicle, did police need a warrant to search it once they had immobilized it?
Michael Woods v. State of Maryland
Convicted by a jury, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, of two counts of armed robbery and three counts of first-degree assault, as well as use of a handgun in a crime of violence, and possession of a firearm by a disqualified individual, Michael Woods, appellant, contends that the evidence does not support his three assault convictions.
Azaniah Blankumsee v. State of Maryland
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying, after a hearing, a petition for writ of actual innocence, brought on the ground of the discovery of false credentials.
