ELROY MATTHEWS, JR.
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2011/2801s09.pdf

Another opinion by the Court of Special Appeals, another opinion by Judge Moylan — this time focusing on what constitutes an “illegal sentence.“

Judge Moylan explains that while there could be numerous sentences that are referred to as “illegal,” the type of sentence that courts are permitted to correct “at any time” regardless of whether the objection is preserved, as per the Walczak decision, is specifically a “sentence which is beyond the statutorily granted power of the judge to impose.” Termed a substantively illegal sentence. For example, a judge sentencing someone to 75 years, when the statute allows a maximum of 30.
This is distinguished from the “illegal sentence” in appellant’s situation, when the judge sentenced Matthews to pay restitution for a crime he was not convicted of which is a procedurally illegal sentence.

ADRIAN MCFADDEN AND ANTHONY MILES
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2011/275s09.pdf

This opinion by the Court of Special Appeals contains a record much more typical of what I’ve come to expect, which is why I was so pleasantly surprised in my last judicial watch post.

Of interest in the case is the further misuse/miswording of the CSI question; judges seem to have a problem phrasing this voir dire question in a way that does not imply a guilty verdict is necessary. Someone should look into that.

Another point of interest is that accepting an empaneled jury after objecting to a voir dire question that was used to choose the jury, does not constitute waiver of the preserved objection.

The real fun part deals with improper comments from the prosecution and the judge’s complete lack of anything resembling judgment in overruling the defense counsels’ objections.

On appeal, appellants claim that the following comments made by the State were
improper:
1) During opening statement, the State asked the jurors to “keep in
mind who has a reason to lie.”
2) During closing argument, the State referred to “the propaganda
people in Nazi Germany.”
3) During rebuttal closing argument, the State alleged that “prosecutors
have a different ethical standard than defense attorneys.”
4) During rebuttal closing argument, the State alleged that “[n]o
prosecutor gets paid more if there’s a conviction.”
5) During rebuttal closing argument, the State alleged that appellants
“know how to work the system” because McFadden “didn’t even
have to be given his Miranda rights.” According to the State, when
the detectives showed up to serve an arrest warrant, McFadden
“looked at them and said, ‘I’m not talking to you. I have a lawyer.’”
6) During rebuttal closing argument, the State averred that, not only can
appellants confront witnesses, “they can also compel witnesses.”

Thankfully, the State gets a benchslap by Judge Wright; it’s a good read.

JOSE GARCIA-PERLERA

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2011/1371s09.pdf

This opinion by the Court of Special Appeals is almost refreshing. Of course I’ve found almost any opinion written by Retired Judge Moylan an excellent read; they are typically chock-full of information regarding criminal procedure.

This opinion is no different, and Judge Moylan gives a primer on search warrant language limitations, severability, and sentence merger. It helps enormously that the facts of the case (at least the facts as determined at trial) reflect a criminal justice system that was working as it it supposed to.

The appellant in this case was accused and convicted of multiple home invasions and robberies, all performed using very similar methods. During the investigation of the most recent robbery, the investigating officers “immediately suspended the search” pursuant to the first warrant that was very limited in scope and “subsequently obtained a second search warrant” to fit the investigation for all of the robberies when an officer “found a bronze medallion commemorating the NASA Mercury astronauts on appellant’s coffee table” that the detective on scene “immediately suspected” was related to a previous home invasion. The trial court actually gave serious consideration to the appellant’s motion to sever, at least on the record.

I’ve gotten so used to hearing about the horrors of our criminal justice system, that reading an opinion where the record doesn’t read like a laundry list of police and judicial atrocities seems like a treat.

Over a year ago, I helped a local attorney on a criminal appellate case. I did some legal research and helped draft the arguments for the client’s appeal to the MD Court of Special Appeals.

In October, I sat in the courtroom after meeting the client and listened to oral arguments on the case. I was still involved enough that I was mouthing answers to the court’s questions from my seat against the wall.

Finally, yesterday, the court posted their opinion — a surprise, since the Court of Special Appeals doesn’t often report decisions. Reading the decision was gratifying and instructive on many levels. Most importantly, our client’s conviction was vacated and remanded for a new trial. Sure, we would have been happier if it was simply reversed as a matter of law, but a new trial isn’t the end of the world; especially since several jurors told the attorney after the trial that they would have decided otherwise if they were given instructions that allowed it.

The process was incredibly enlightening. Aside from getting a kick out of seeing my arguments and words referenced in a court’s opinion, this crystallized my feelings that I want to practice law. Until now, the little voice that some of us have in the back of our minds has been asking me if becoming a lawyer is really something I want to do, or if it just looks like a good idea in theory.

I’m looking forward to doing this again.