Sign In
Free Newsletter
STATE OF MARYLAND v. KARIEM YOONUS AKA FARIEN YOONUS and DASHAWN PAYTON
Did the lower court act without authority when it set aside [a]ppellees’ convictions, permitted them to withdraw from their binding plea agreements and dismissed their indictments for the State’s technical violation of a scheduling order
RICKY DINGLE v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Dingle argued that the trial court, in 2002, was without authority to impose an enhanced sentence of 25 years without the possibility of parole because, purportedly, the State had not adequately and properly proven the requisite two predicate convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
RODRICK JACKSON v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Former firefighter appeals dismissal of breach of contract claim against the city of Baltimore, arguing it was premature and an abuse of discretion to decide Appellant did not have grounds to pursue a breach of contract claim per the Memorandum of Understanding.
J. DAVID KOMMALAN, et al. v. FRANK J. SARRO, III
Even if appellants had the right to file an appeal from a consent judgment entered in conformity with the a consent judgment approved by the court, their contention that the terms of the consent judgment were inequitable is not supported by any fact in the record.
TERRILL ANDREA PITTS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
The trial judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Pitts was in the motor vehicle of another with intent to commit theft of the motor vehicle or property in the vehicle. In this appeal, Pitts contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he was in the vehicle with the intent to steal either the vehicle or the contents of that vehicle.
DEONTRAE LUCAS, et al. v. POLICE OFFICER HAYES I340, et al.
More than three years after the plaintiffs suffered injury, they filed an amended complaint in which they added “Police Officer Fuller [badge no.] H059,” and “Police Officer Williams [badge no.] H319.” The first names of Officers Fuller and Williams were not provided.
TONY STEPHENSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Appellant presents two questions: 1. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon? 2. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction for robbery?
MARTIN McCLAIN A/K/A MARTIN McLAIN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
1. Did the court abuse its discretion by qualifying a police officer as an expert in CDS identification, packaging, and sales when the officer had undergone no special training in that field and had never testified before as an expert? 2. Did the court plainly err by instructing the jury on “believable doubt” rather than reasonable doubt?
MARYAM REZAIE v. MARYLAND REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, et al.
Months after the petition for judicial review was filed, appellant sought a remand to the Md. Real Estate Commission so it could consider newly discovered evidence. 1) Did the trial judge abuse his discretion by refusing to consider the new evidence? 2) Did the judge err when he affirmed the Commission's decision?
MARCUS SEAN JONES v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Any ambiguity in the sentence as announced orally by the sentencing judge was removed by the contemporaneously filed commitment record; thus, the sentence was not illegal.
Jermaine Lowery v. State of Maryland
Did the circuit court err in denying a motion to suppress the evidence?
Kairee Deyonte Dorsey v. State of Maryland
Whether inculpatory admissions made at 4 o’clock in the morning, after multiple police threats to the welfare of Appellant’s nine-month-old infant and the child’s mother, were properly admitted at trial.
